Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:41:49 04/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2002 at 12:14:47, Sune Fischer wrote: >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:). No I do not think that low rated humans have better positional understanding than computers. There are positions that they understand better than computers but there are positions when the computer evaluation function is superior and in most of the positions that practically happen the computer's positional evaluation is better. Humans may overevaluate or underevaluate some advantage when computers often know better to give the right weights for the different factors in the evaluation Uri
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.