Author: blass uri
Date: 11:58:22 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 13:51:58, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 12:17:32, blass uri wrote: > >Hi Uri, > >>I read in chesskasparov site that Junior could avoid the problem against piket >>by 8.h4 and if 8...h6 9.e6 > >Yes, it is 'could'. But it wasn't played, so it remains speculation. > >>The difference between the scores of 8.h4 and the move that was played is >>small(at least for Junior5.9) and it is possible that Junior could find h4 with >>better hardware. > >It is not a hardware problem. THE problem is that most computer chess programs >do not understand the formulating of a plan when having a blocked position. This >is not only about one move, e.g. 8. h4. Even without 8. h4 it had quite a good >position, but simply had no idea what was going on. Believe me Uri, I play chess >for 25 years now and YOU CAN'T SOLVE THIS PROBLEM BY STRONGER HARDWARE. > >>piket could not be sure that he will win before the game because he could not >be sure that Junior will not find 8.h4. > >Nothing is sure in life. Piket's strategy was brilliant and if I didn't know who >was the White player in this game, I seriously would think it was a game played >in a simultaneous exhibition. > >>If the definition of GM strength includes to play weaker than 1800 players in >>some positins than I guess that computer without GM strengh can get 3000 rating >>in the future because even if they understand the stonewall and do not >>understand fortress positions they will not be GM strength by your definition. > >I don't understand what you mean. IMO a super GM can play all types of positions >and he has the UNDERSTANDING of several thousands of plans. Furthermore, a super >GM is able to recognize patterns and is able to adjust himself to the opponent. >As long as a computer program doesn't know 'blocked positions and king's attacks >are my weak point, I should avoid them', or the programmers stop using all their >efforts on NPS and NOT solving these types of position, GM's will do one simple >thing: They have LEARNED from this tournament. They now know how to play against >the machine. And as long as nothing is done to prevent disasters like against >Piket, in my opinion a chess computer program has no GM knowledge. > >But this is repeating my view, since I already said: GM RESULTS yes, GM >UNDERSTANDING no. One last simple line to support my view: > >In open positions DJ scored 4 out of 6, which is a TPR way above 2800. >In closed positions DJ scored 0,5 out of 3, which is rather bad. I think it scored 2 draws against akopian and adams in closed positions. I also do not think that it played clearly open positions against Bareev or Huebner. Uri > >Jeroen
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.