Author: Don Dailey
Date: 23:05:06 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>What I'm saying is that computers can still overtake us without >>>>being better in every single way. This is already the case with >>>>me personally. I am not very strong as a chess player and have >>>>never been over 2000 USCF, but I can still see my program make >>>>errors that I would not make. It's getting much rarer now but >>>>it still happens. And yet I am forced to concede that my >>>>program is much better than I am. >>>> >>> >>>And I have the same problem. But I don't get beaten because I get killed >>>positionally, I get beat due to tactical mistakes. That's not nearly so >>>common at the GM-level, although they do make them. But, when they play >>>computers, they are also good enough to create positions where they are not >>>likely to make tactical mistakes, because the computer's position doesn't offer >>>any tactical chances (Anand vs Fritz, game 1, reference, where fritz had >>>absolutely no chance whatsoever.) >>> >>>If Anand mixes it up with Fritz, he's going to lose some. But if he chooses >>>to play into positions where tactics don't mean much, he's not going to have >>>to think much at all. >>> >>>That's the point here. If I was good enough to steer games away from the wild >>>tactical slugfests, I'd be willing to play any micro for money, and go home >>>rich. Because I know more than any I have seen. But if it turns wild, then >>>they have a huge advantage. But at the GM level, the GM's are quite good enough >>>to simply not allow the micro advantage to become an issue. And if you take out >>>tactics, you take out 90% of what a program is good at. Leaving very little >>>hope against a good GM (or even good IM) player. >> >>Have you read my latest post on the subject? I make the point that >>HAVING to steer away from these computer friendly positions is a >>serious handicap in itself. Did you see my analogy with Kasparov >>vs Deep Blue? You don't get something for nothing. Kasparov >>had to give up something to get his positional games. It's my opinion >>that he gave up too much because it's not the kind of chess he is >>best known for. > > > >no.. you miss the point. There is *nothing* that says that a GM can't >"play his own game." Nothing at all. Forget Kasparov. He followed bad >advice, practiced against Fritz thinking it was preparing him for Deep Blue, >and he got just what he deserved. But did you watch Anand vs Fritz? Anand >didn't "play weird chess".. he just didn't let Fritz have a chance tactically. > >That's quite different from what you are thinking, I'm afraid. You seem to >be assuming that avoiding an open position means giving up too much. I'm >saying that a GM can *do both*. Avoid tactics *and* play his own game. Anand >proved it against Fritz. Let's watch against Rebel then continue this... You are missing the point, not me. I AGREE with your point, you completely ignore mine. Your point is that Anand is skillful enough to avoid tactics *and* play his own game. This is not the point I was making. I will have to resort to a more extreme example. Let's say that I magically developed the amazing ability to win EVERY game where my opponent castles king side. But in every other way I did not improve at all. When you played against me, you would eventually learn that you could never EVER castle king side. I can imagine you saying, "Oh, that's no problem, I'll just never castle king side!" Do you see the problem? Even though you have managed to avoid my strengths, I still have extracted an advantage from this ability. You might argue that you are good enough to beat me anyway, but that is a completely different point. And it's not the point I am arguing. - Don
This page took 0 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.