I disagree that computer are better than super GM until.....

[pichy]

I disagree that computer are better than super GM until computer consistently beat super GM in closed positions if the super GM decides to close all his games. Since there is no rule that dictates how the human should play they can draw most of their games or let the computer run out of time forcing them to make silly sacrifices which end up losing.

[Sean Evans]

I disagree that computer are better than super GM until computer consistently beat super GM in closed positions if the super GM decides to close all his games. Since there is no rule that dictates how the human should play they can draw most of their games or let the computer run out of time forcing them to make silly sacrifices which end up losing.

SGM will no longer play against computers, they are too powerful!

[MM]

I disagree that computer are better than super GM until computer consistently beat super GM in closed positions if the super GM decides to close all his games. Since there is no rule that dictates how the human should play they can draw most of their games or let the computer run out of time forcing them to make silly sacrifices which end up losing.

I agree with you. I don't even think that a Super GM or an expert GM needs necessarily to close the position to get a draw or a win.
I would say 2 factors:

engines don't plan on long range.
engines have horizon effect and have often ''holes'' in analysis, then moves that for some reasons are discarded and they are good.

I really doubt that Carlsen or Nakamura would lose a match against a top engine.


You may say, Kramnik lost, Kasparov lost and drew.
It is true.
But i don't think that they played those matches at their full strenght.
I don't think that Kasparov played against Junior or Kramnik against Fritz with the same level of skill that they usually use against humans in the world championship, for example.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I still remember the match Milov (GM at around 2700 at that time) against Rybka 3, some years ago.
It was an handycap match, ok, but anyway Milov won.
Milov wasn't certainly one of the strongest GM at that time but he knew how to play against a machine.
I read somewhere that after the match Milov offered a rematch to Rybka's team, but Milov wanted to play without any handycap for Rybka and he said also that he was pretty confident.
The 2nd match never happened....



Best Regards

[pichy]

I disagree that computer are better than super GM until computer consistently beat super GM in closed positions if the super GM decides to close all his games. Since there is no rule that dictates how the human should play they can draw most of their games or let the computer run out of time forcing them to make silly sacrifices which end up losing.

SGM will no longer play against computers, they are too powerful!

I will reword it, if the Super GM play open game positions they don't have a chance, but if they decide to close the position the engines are not programmed yet to force the computer to sac pawns or more valuable pieces in order to break the position, since as soon as the evaluation is minus 2 the engines will not select that move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbAzeDxxGuQ

[MM]

I disagree that computer are better than super GM until computer consistently beat super GM in closed positions if the super GM decides to close all his games. Since there is no rule that dictates how the human should play they can draw most of their games or let the computer run out of time forcing them to make silly sacrifices which end up losing.

SGM will no longer play against computers, they are too powerful!

I will reword it, if the Super GM play open game positions they don't have a chance, but if they decide to close the position the engines are not programmed yet to force the computer to sac pawns or more valuable pieces in order to break the position, since as soon as the evuation is minus 2 the engines will not select that move.

There are open positions or open game positions that are very easy to draw for a GM.
What makes the engine dangerous are the complications, for example when there are lot of pieces and pawns threating each other.

When the position is closed, usally there are not complications.
It becomes a strategical battle and in this field the engines are still weaker.
Humans probably would lose in a tactical fight on short/medium range. Don't know in a tactical fight on long range, cause the horizon effect and the holes in engine's analysys.


Best Regards

[Ponti]

Computers excell in calculation.

Give the GM a position that is easy to win without much calculation and he´ll win it.

Give the computer a closed position that needs a sacrifice to open it up and win, and maybe it should not win it. Give the same position to a GM and he´ll probably see the plan involving the sacrifice, but if he can win it after the position is opened depends on his ´class´ - I mean, not every GM would win it, I think.

Regarding the 2 mentioned matchs "K x computer", I think it was just a matter of... money.

Maybe there is another game that Kramnik did not see he would be mated in one move, but I don´t remember it...

[MM]

Computers excell in calculation.

Give the GM a position that is easy to win without much calculation and he´ll win it.

Give the computer a closed position that needs a sacrifice to open it up and win, and maybe it should not win it. Give the same position to a GM and he´ll probably see the plan involving the sacrifice, but if he can win it after the position is opened depends on his ´class´ - I mean, not every GM would win it, I think.

Regarding the 2 mentioned matchs "K x computer", I think it was just a matter of... money.

Maybe there is another game that Kramnik did not see he would be mated in one move, but I don´t remember it...

+1,

yes, Kramnik didn't see a threat of checkmate in 1....

[lkaufman]

[I still remember the match Milov (GM at around 2700 at that time) against Rybka 3, some years ago.
It was an handycap match, ok, but anyway Milov won.
Milov wasn't certainly one of the strongest GM at that time but he knew how to play against a machine.
I read somewhere that after the match Milov offered a rematch to Rybka's team, but Milov wanted to play without any handycap for Rybka and he said also that he was pretty confident.
The 2nd match never happened....

Best Regards

In that match Milov got one draw out of two games at "White" handicap, one win and one draw at pawn and Move (f7) handicap, and three draws plus one win at rook for knight handicap. With such results it is obvious that a non-handicap match would have been overwhelmingly one-sided in the computers' favor. We were just a tad too generous with the handicaps.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

[I still remember the match Milov (GM at around 2700 at that time) against Rybka 3, some years ago.
It was an handycap match, ok, but anyway Milov won.
Milov wasn't certainly one of the strongest GM at that time but he knew how to play against a machine.
I read somewhere that after the match Milov offered a rematch to Rybka's team, but Milov wanted to play without any handycap for Rybka and he said also that he was pretty confident.
The 2nd match never happened....

Best Regards

In that match Milov got one draw out of two games at "White" handicap, one win and one draw at pawn and Move (f7) handicap, and three draws plus one win at rook for knight handicap. With such results it is obvious that a non-handicap match would have been overwhelmingly one-sided in the computers' favor. We were just a tad too generous with the handicaps.

+1

[Sarciness]

+1

+2