Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 12:07:17 08/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 1998 at 11:28:46, blass uri wrote: > >On August 06, 1998 at 08:36:52, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On August 05, 1998 at 22:01:43, Tim Mirabile wrote: >> >>>I found the following quote in a book review by IM John Watson on the TWIC >>>pages. The full text is at http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatson1.html in a >>>review of recent game collections by Speelman, Anand, and Shirov. >>> >>>> We should realize that Shirov, like Anand but more so, is a primary >>>> representative of the ultra-dynamic modern style. He calls his own style >>>> 'very concrete', which is consistent with his now-renowned powers of >>>> calculation; and makes this fascinating comment: >>>> >>>> 'I have always tried to be not just a tactician--working with a positional >>>> player such as Bagirov and studying hard has helped me to develop my own >>>> strategic understanding, although chess is nowadays so concrete that pure >>>> strategy practically doesn't exist for me.' >>>> >>>> An amazing statement which pretty much sums up what's been happening in chess, >>>> beginning with Kasparov. One could easily imagine Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, >>>> Ivanchuk, Polgar or any number of other top-class players saying the same >>>> thing. Pure strategy may not be dead; but it's been missing in action for 20 >>>> years or so, which is not auspicious!" >>> >>>The only problem is that this concrete style, which is so effective against >>>humans, plays right to the strength of current chess programs. Computer >>>opponents will continue to give the top humans fits until they realize this. >>> >>>But it is not so easy to simply abandon your style, and successfully adopt a new >>>one. The second Kasparov-Deep Blue match, especially game 2 before the errors, >>>demonstrated this. To adopt a new style at the same high level would require >>>intense study for a long period, and even then it might not be possible for such >>>a player to achieve the same results against humans as he had with the old >>>style. >>> >>>At this point it is not worth the effort for the top players, because there are >>>no computers in regular high-level tournaments. But I think it is still >>>possible for even average GMs to successfully adopt a positional style against >>>the microcomputer programs. This may involve adjusting ones opening choices, >>>and a willingness to pass up tempting tactical continuations in favor of lines >>>involving pure judgement. >> >>While I agree with the above conclusion, there is this to consider. What a GM >>considers strategy and what a computer program considers knowledge are 2 vastly >>different things. All GMs are looking at chess at such a level of strategical >>understanding compared to computers that they the GMs dismiss what we would >>consider strategy as just something beneath them even to talk about. I have >>heard very strong players talk about certain positions this way. "In this >>position and positions like it you don't even consider that. Everyone knows that >>this way is the right way to go. I don't want to hear about this. Look, you go >>here. I go here and now you are in ZUG. This is well known. You can't do this." >>If you were to ask the GM were there any strategical concepts in this position, >>he would look at you with rolled eyes and say No, this is too simple to discuss. >>So don't believe Shirov when he says that there is no strategy in his games. It >>is just that at his level strategy has a whole new meaning. He might mean that >>he hasn't come up with a new concept in quite a while and everything is opening >>study and calculation. He doesn't have to worry about positional play becuase he >>intuitively understands what Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik and Korchnoi know. He >>waves strategy away with a magic wand because it is part of him like his flesh >>and blood. BUT believe me, if you look at his match against Kramnik you will >>realize that Shirov understands and uses positional concepts far beyond what any >>computer program understands. Besides which his level of opening prep will >>always be far above any micro. > >I am not sure about the advantage of GM's in opening preperation >I remember kasparov forgot his opening preperation and lost in a game, >Something like this cannot happen to computer programs. > >Uri > >> So the Super GM has 2 large advantages over any >>chess computer, which will outweigh the calculation disadvantge for quite a >>while yet. The closer the micros get to beating the Super GM's, the farther it >>seems they have to go. Of course we are talking about 40/2 chess here where >>blunders don't play a major role. >>-- >>Komputer Korner The exception that you bring up shows that Kasparov is human but even so, it is such an incredible fingerfehler, that I can't believe it to this day. It still bothers me that this happened to Kasparov and thus to the whole human race against computer programs. However I guarantee you that if any of the top 10 players had another chance against Deep Blue, the results would be different. -- Komputer Korner
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.