Don,
When i play or analyze with a world top player, like top 10 of world,
and i do not get that chance a lot in my life, then i can really
assure you,
from a social viewpoint seen, maybe YOU are far better than any of the
Russians i've ever played.
But from technical chess viewpoint seen: Opening, Middlegame, Endgame
and strategically and from accuracy viewpoint, they're a different
type of level.
The average nerd here will not be able to imagine this. They're *so*
much better.
A few months ago i had the honour of playing someone from India from
the highest caste;
I concluded that he was better in every respect than me: Strategical,
Tactical, Opening,
Memory (he remembered way way more), not to mention endgame.
Todays world top players, regardless whether you speak of a 9 dan go,
or the highest rated chessplayers, they are a league on their own,
where as a human race we can be only proud of having them.
Now it is because the games have a limited size of board and limited
set of rules that
define the play, that with software we can or will beat them.
Yet you must realize very well that a strong chessplayer is also a
strong go player
and that a strong go player is a strong chessplayer. Note this is NOT
the case for checkers.
Go and chess are both SYMMETRIC games. Strategy and tactics are similar.
The indirect manner to win at chess and go is the same. In go it is
also the endgoal: maximizing
your influence levels, in chess that's similar to maximizing mobility.
In 10x10 international checkers, the toughest and most widely played
variation of the game,
not to confuse with the simplistic and nearly dead analyzed 8x8
checkers, those checkers games
are asymmetric type of games. You cannot make a move to any part of
the board, unlike with chess/go,
you can only move forward and never go back. That asymmetric nature
of the game really is of overwhelming
importance. It totally changes the nature of the game.
Typically world champion level 10x10 checkers players are very poor
chess players, 1600-1800 rated most are.
That's not even enough to play in national competition here.
My club has 4 teams (which is a lot) in national competition. Not a
single of the titled checkers players are strong enough
to play there. On the other hand if a professional go player would
knock on my door right now: "heh i'm 5 dan professional go,
i like to play some chess this season", i would directly call the
federation: "heh we have a new player for our second team".
Within 1 day after learning the basic rules he/she can already play
easily in first division. If you realize that this is just 1 grade
underneath the
professional division (masterclass) and that there is 2 more grades
(second class and third class) where we also have 2 teams,
you'll realize the huge difference.
Firstclass is 2100 - 2350+ , a few GM's (Jan Timman) and a few IM's
play there as well.
If you want to know how strong a pro is, play him for money.
I know the double sides effect of the above statement, in chess the
big problem
with those chess programs/computers has always
been that people got paid to lose.
This because most sponsors of matches always had more interest in
winning a match than a fair competition,
or they set up the matches wrong. It is cheaper to hire a
professional player for a lumpsum fee, as he doesn't need
to achieve a thing then and he can relax and do his best next day
when playing in an all GM tournament.
The few matches we had where GM's got paid a lot more when winning,
the computer has never ever in history won those
matches. Kramnik demanded 1 million dollar from a sheikh 'advance
payment', Hydra team paid a lumpsum, Kasparov played
such beginners level against deep blue in the second match, just like
he did do in the first match (which was enough to
win) about elo 2100 he played, that even today i'm not sure why.
There is 2 different statements that reached me.
Several Russian GM's (some living in the west) swore to me that he
has betted millions at the computer (could get good odds),
some other official who was there also during the match at the side
of the Kasparov team (whose name i won't reveal,
as i forgot who it was), told me clearly there was a 'contractual'
issue.
Personal i tend to believe the last explanation more than the first,
deep blue was so outdated by 1997 from algorithmic
and evaluation viewpoint, that under no condition could they have
played another match without looking like total beginners
compared to the PC-software programs.
They searched 10-12 ply with the thing, as logfiles also prove
clearly. 2 years later, in the open hardware world championships
1999, the quad xeons (400-500Mhz) searched 14-17 ply handsdown and a
lot more than that in endgame. I reached myself
at a quad xeon 20+ ply there in endgames where deep blue got 12.
Not a single of all those matches ever has been objective. Human
players have 1 weakness: money.
The reason they can AFFORD to grab money is because they will next
year still get another match as long as they have their
elorating or in go that would be dan-status.
Now in the year 2008 i believe computer makes good odds of winning
such matches if they would be objective.
Basically it is waiting for the kill each game. The human player will
get totally won out of the opening every game.
If he can finish it, mankind can still win.
It is sad that there has not been a match Hydra-Topalov a few years
ago. With his superior openings, Topalov is the ideal
representative to fight machines. Most likely the reason is that
Topalov doesn't want to garantuee he loses,
as he has proven in previous games against the machine also.
Chessbase didn't even invite him anymore for the
event in Spain, as Topalov was the only guy who tried at least to do
*some* effort during the games to play well.
With those experiences he'd do better now, despite that the machine
is hundreds of elopoints stronger now at the regions where
it already was so strong.
What we know for sure though is that Bobby Fischer would get
annihilated by the machine, his openings were not so well.
He had to win games based upon very clever exchanging into endgame
using his superior strategic knowledge.
That's similar to how Anand plays.
That regrettably for them doesn't work against the machine (Sorry
Vishy). The opening is the machines weakest spot.
Vincent
On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:22 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
I think people forget how many levels of skill there are. I think I
share this experience with many others, but the first time I
encountered serious chess players at a chess club, I expected to
"clean
up" because I always beat casual players I might play. I simply
came to
think I was good when I wasn't.
I got humbled pretty quickly. I went from thinking I was quite
good to
realizing I was one of the worst players in the club. I worked
my way
up to being one of the better players in the club, but realized I
still
sucked because the club itself was composed mostly of "mediocre"
players
(we had 1 master who rarely showed up and a couple of 1900+ players
and
then lots of 1400-1700 players.)
There is a seemingly unlimited number of players better than you, no
matter how strong you get unless you are truly one of the elite.
- Don
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 15:43 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote:
I know a 4-Dan player who told a story that goes something like this:
He and his friends who were all very strong chess players at the
time,
discovered the rules of go and played a bunch of games against each
other until they thought they mastered it. Later they met a player
who
gave them a 9-stone handicap and beat them easily. They were shocked
and told him he must be a master player but he just replied: "No I am
just a beginner".
-Magnus
Quoting Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Adrian Grajdeanu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read that story in a book, just after Bobby Fisher's death.
Don't remember
all details, save that he was astonished he got beaten.
Adrian
Hehe. After I learned the game (from a book, playing with my father
who brought a set from Japan for my birthday) I was also
astonished to
be beaten by the first other person I met that knew the game. And he
gave me 9 stones handicap! But rather than putting me off it made me
even more intrigued by the game. Now I know this person was probably
not even 15 kyu.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
