Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:14:47 04/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2002 at 11:16:23, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On April 02, 2002 at 05:08:08, Martin Andersen wrote: > >>"I was totally unprepared to play against a modern playing program. My >>experience from the mid-1990s turns out to have been completely irrelevant >>today" >> >>This is a surprise to me. He didn't know that there has been a big increase in >>playing strength for chess programs in the last 7-8 years, of course due to >>faster hardware but also better software. > >Do you think that Gulko didn't know of the hardware and software progress...I >seriously doubt about this, probably it's just a good excuse ? > >>Then I would say his score of 3-5 without preparation, is excellent. >> >>http://www.kasparovchess.com/serve/templates/folders/show.asp?p_docID=20790&p_docLang=EN >> >> >>Martin. > > >In this case he affirms that only playing anticomps and with well preparation he >is going to prevail in some way and this is another 100 elo points for the comps >IMHO. >Humans are piece of cakes if Gulko is right... :) > >w.b.r. >Otello I think what he is saying is, that he needs a bit of time to get used to a new way of thinking. Computers do not make tactical blunders, so the time he spent looking for that was just wasted. IMHO the rating of programs would drop 100-200 elo if the programs could enter regular tournaments. The GMs would quickly discover some of their weaknesses, they would learn good anti-comp strategies and would always be able to at least draw the things. Does a few more plies/speed change this? I'm not sure, I don't think 2 plies means a lot in turns of better king safety, pawn eval and what else in the eval(). I have often seen very strong programs become very passive in closed positions, they simply do not steer clear of this, it means they might draw low-rated playes who just happen to know a bit of anti-comp. strategy. The fact is, that humans still have a far better positional eval than programs. I think even low-rated (>1600) playes has a better positional understanding, but they just get killed in tactics (probably why they can win with the fischer-move rule:). At some point the brute force will of cause prevail, since even a GM has a *tactical limit*. I was surprised that Gulko prased Hiarcs on the positional play, I wonder if Hiarcs is that good in all types of positions ;) -S.
This page took 0.01 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.