Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:23:11 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 12:19:15, Chris Carson wrote: >On April 17, 2002 at 10:58:13, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On April 17, 2002 at 09:07:04, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On April 17, 2002 at 03:33:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On April 17, 2002 at 03:04:52, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 17, 2002 at 01:31:51, Joe Little wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 16, 2002 at 18:28:36, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 16, 2002 at 17:19:13, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>>>>a program which plays a game like shredder vs. >>>>>>>>smirin is just not GM strength. it is 3000+ in tactics and 2000- in positional >>>>>>>>play. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that chess is made over 90% of tactics... so 2700+ is not an optimistic >>>>>>>evaluation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>Otello >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree, seems pretty obvious to me but who am I? >>>>> >>>>>Yes Chess is 90% tactics at least, maybe even 95%! But that would still only >>>>>mean that programmes play around 2700 level in tactics only, not in positional >>>>>play and planning, which is _fundamental_ and till a programme aquires this >>>>>skill in won't be a _complete_ Grandmaster. >>>>> >>>>>Planning is many years away, positional play is advanced a long ways but still >>>>>needs improvement. >>>>> >>>>>Computers will play 2800+ in tactics long before it can actually manage deep >>>>>positional play, let alone planning. >>>> >>>>I think that computers are 2800+ in tactic even today and it is not something >>>>about the future. >>>> >>>>tactics is not only long combinations but mainly short combinations. >>>>No human can see every short combination that programs has no chance to miss. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I agree with you Uri. I would add that computers still have some problems with >>>chess knowledge, however they make up for it with tactics. I would also add >>>that Planning and Preparation are the keys (or just plain luck) to beating the >>>comps. Do you have any additional ideas on beating the comps? >>> >>>I also agree with your evaluation on opening preparation. I see no ethical >>>reason why a program must use a known book. GM's get to use any >>>book/preparation they choose, it is only fair that the comps get to change their >>>books. (This discussion was in a different part of this thread). >> >> >>What's your rating Chris as you need to be 2800 to know whether or not >>Comps./Programmes have attained this level of sophistication. > >My rating is in my profile. It is nowhere near 2800. You have posted your >opinion on short vs long tactics in this and other threads, I wonder if you >follow the "need to be 2800 to know" rule for yourself? My opinion is just >that. If you do not like it, I can live with that. > >> >>Kasparov and Kramnik say todays' programmes on top PC's are not 2800+ in the >>tactical arena. > >Well, Kramnik recently said that Fritz 7 on 8-processors "definitely be over >2800 in its Elo performance". Last time I checked, that was ELO 2800+ and I >believe it to be higher in tactics than in positional play. >See: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=255 > >I doubt you can support your statement with a more recent Kramnik quote. > Just as surely as I believe that the statement by Kramnik is pure pre-match hyperbole, having nothing to do with facts at all. As Kasparov has stated although again, I would take _his_ statements with a grain of salt as well as everybody has an agenda in this circumstance... But forget the 2800+ stuff. It ain't gonna happen... >> >>They miss too much in long range tactics due to the "Horizon Effect". >> >>Terry
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.