Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 16:57:19 09/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 1998 at 13:59:01, blass uri wrote: > >On September 04, 1998 at 13:40:56, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >> >> >>Hi all: >>Many times it has been said here, specially by Bob Hyatt, that there is not >>transitivity in terms of strength between programs: If A beat B and B beat C, >>that does not means, then, that A surely beats C. This is true and the same is >>true, as experience show, in the realms of human players of any category. But >>then I wonder if also is true in the mixed field of programs vs human Vs GM. I >>wonder if the known fact that GM are still stronger than programs in long games >>and the also known fact that top programs are far stronger than A and even >>expert level players, then that necessarily means that GM are stronger than top >>programs in relation with those low level players. >>My feeling is that this is a debatable issue. In fact, I even have some >>arguments to say that maybe top programs are stronger than GM in that specific >>relationship with low level players. Let me explain my point. >>What makes a GM a GM and not just a master or IM is specifically his superior >>positional grasping of the game. They see, in that field, things that we does >>not even suspect. In the most rarified layers of that stratosphere, say, in >>games between Karpov and Kasparov, we just don’t understand what is happening, >>why one of them resigned or offered a draw; they see things far beyond our chess >>understanding. >>Nevertheless, it is very unlike that a game between a GM and an expert o A class >>player could ever reach a depth where such kind of subtile things becomes >>necessary. The weaker player will be finished long before just on the ground of >>tactical shots or, more likely if we are talking of an expert player, with >>positional pressure of the kind you can meet in a Master or IM level player. >>That is more than enough 99% of cases. So, with this low level players, the >>knowledge and expertise of GM in the most subtile areas of positional >>understanding will stay without use, or, in other terms, will become marginally >>useful for the strongest player. >>But then, look what happens from the point of view of the weaker player. When he >>is playing -in a simul or, like in my case, in my home with a friend GM- he >>surely will be defeated, but as much the GM is nevertheless a human being, there >>is a likelihood that maybe, maybe, MAYBE you will be capable sometime to kill >>him with a tactical bullet in the head before he can use his superior positional >>understanding OR, more probably, that the GM will miss a tactical shot you made >>possible due to an inexact move or even an straight blunder and do you will be >>let playing with a hope to get something. And you know it. You know you can do >>it, that you have the chance. You know that maybe a minute imprecision will be >>not detected after all. >>But against top programs the feeling is entirely different. What you know from >>the beginning is that nothing of all those tactical tricks you learned after an >>entire life of chess playing will be useful at all > >No, I do not know it before the game. >There are tactical tricks that are too deep for the program to see and if you >learned a tactical trick like this before the game then you have a chance to >win. >There are mistakes that I know that all the top programs do but I cannot be sure >about a mistake that all the grandmasters will do. >I think I have better chances to win a game by home preperation before the game >against a program than against a grandmaster. > >Uri Good! That was exactly what I was trying to say in the story book I wrote above! "Short and sweet" is always the best to express an idea/opinion! Serge Desmarais
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.