Author: Albert Silver
Date: 16:56:09 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 08:57:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On December 07, 1999 at 07:50:10, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On December 07, 1999 at 06:16:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On December 05, 1999 at 20:33:46, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 05, 1999 at 20:03:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 05, 1999 at 13:30:52, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 05, 1999 at 12:49:48, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On November 30, 1999 at 01:32:41, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On November 29, 1999 at 09:10:26, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Guadeloupe isn't exactly a hotbed for strong chess players. I'm not sure how
>>>>>>>>>much he can learn from such games.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Albert Silver
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I must concur, but am also compelled to comment that Christophe's war chest of
>>>>>>>>386s isn't exactly a hotbed of speed either. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's exactly the point. Using a 386sx-20MHz again and again against players
>>>>>>>that understand where the weaknesses of the program are is a terrible test,
>>>>>>>believe me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For years, they wanted to play against Chess Tiger because it was fun to beat
>>>>>>>"the" computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tiger had no learning, and usually the same player tried to play the same
>>>>>>>unsound king attack over and over until he won. Usually it took several trials
>>>>>>>because the human player would do a tactical mistake. I did not prevent them
>>>>>>>from doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have learned a lot with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand, and this brings to mind Ed's comment sometime ago in which he
>>>>>>explained how hard it was nowadays to see where and when Rebel was improving or
>>>>>>not, simply due to the depth and strength of the program. Naturally, it is much
>>>>>>easier to see what it is doing wrong at 6-7 plies than 11-12, nevertheless the
>>>>>>difference between a 2000 rated player and an GM rated 2500 is not merely one of
>>>>>>depth of calculation. Naturally, the GM is calculating far deeper, but there is
>>>>>>more involved. Suppose your program is getting 6-7 plies in a long game on your
>>>>>>386 and as such you have really maximized the knowledge and performance
>>>>>>according to what you have available. All the same, there are probably certain
>>>>>>things that simply cannot be done on a 386 that could be implemented on a more
>>>>>>powerful computer, because that more powerful computer has an edge that goes
>>>>>>beyond merely doing the same thing the 386 does but faster. This is why it is
>>>>>>impossible to properly compare programs like DB or Cray Blitz with other PC
>>>>>>programs. That is why comments like "if Hiarcs ran on a Cray it would be
>>>>>>stronger than Cray Blitz" have no meaning, as the program is inseparable from
>>>>>>the hardware. I think that as hardware develops, new things are possible in
>>>>>>programs that weren't possible in the past, but at the same time these newer
>>>>>>generation programs won't be retro-compatible, because what they do is only
>>>>>>possible with this new hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm seeing a big piece of crap here already refuted by De Groot
>>>>>many tens of years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>He investigated the difference between what we would call now
>>>>>2200 players and international masters,
>>>>>however at standards of these times it woudl be a comparision
>>>>>between IMs and GMs
>>>>>
>>>>>One of the questions of the investigation was:
>>>>>Do GMs see deeper?
>>>>>
>>>>>Answer: NO
>>>>>
>>>>>Do GMs calculate more lines?
>>>>>
>>>>>Answer: NO
>>>>>
>>>>>Please read some older JICCA's as well.
>>>>>to get JICCA: herik@cs.unimaas.nl and herik@cs.rulimburg.nl
>>>>>
>>>>>One of those email adresses is valid i forgot which one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Albert Silver
>>>>
>>>>De Groot said this in 1965, but I've also read in more recent books that GMs
>>>>_do_ calculate deeper than lesser players *when the position requires it*.
>>>>So the issue is not completely clear-cut.
>>>
>>>let's not copare beginners with beginners, but let's compare GMs with
>>>masterclass players.
>>>
>>>I'm sure that i see deeper and analyze more moves than someone
>>>who just starts chess. That's not an issue.
>>>
>>>Compare the right guys with the right guys!
>>
>>My memory -- which isn't infallible -- suggests to me that GM Soltis made this
>>comment about the difference between GMs and national masters.
>
>Soltis is a fool then who didn't do any research.
That seems a bit hasty. Why does it seem so impossible that GMs calculate more
than masters?
>
>I'm outsearching 90% of all gms in Netherlands bigtime tactical.
>i'm just 2233 and i lose chanceless from most of them, except in blitz...
Interesting statment. Do you honestly believe you are outsearching 90% of all
GMs in Netherlands? Like yourself, my rating is pretty low, yet I also have no
illusions as to my abilities compared to GMs. The games I win are usually due to
tactics and calculation, with a few nice combinations to my credit, yet I have
no doubt that many IMs and most GMs calculate not only better but deeper as well
in most cases. Why makes you believe that you outsearch them, and if this is the
case, to what do you credit your negative score?
Albert Silver
>
>>Dave
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.