Author: Graham Laight
Date: 16:03:34 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 15:07:42, Albert Silver wrote: >>At the end of the day, good chess is good chess. A machine that can beat more >>computers is also likely to beat more humans. >> > >That's really the core of the issue, and I don't agree with it. I used to, but >as I grew stronger in chess, I changed my mind. It isn't because I am way up >there, but because I can better appreciate the difference between myself and an >IM for example. The point is 80-90% of computer chess is dependent on tactics, As computers continiue to get stronger, strong chess players are going to have to accept that there's more than one way to play good chess. Daniel King suggested this in his book about the GK/DB 1997 rematch in New York. >and let's say up to a strength of 2100-2200, this is also very true for human >players, but then a new important factor comes in and the balance swings >completely. Most IMs and GMs rely on their positional play, and this weighs in >more and more as a rule the stronger they get. This is not the case of computer >programs. Not by a long shot. And since no program is sufficiently strong >positionally to properly compensate inferior tactics with superior positional >play, the tactical wizards consistently top the lists. This doesn't quite seem to add up to me. More and more frequently, we are reading about GMs succumbing to computers at tournament time controls. DB v GK was a good example. In the last Aegon tournament (1997), the computers beat the humans overall. If the limit of tactical strength has been reached by computers, and if computers do not have mastery of positional factors, then what's going on? I'm still not happy that I agree with yours and Bob's assertion that SSDF rate the computers too highly. It's true that there is a tendency for new programs to come in with very high Elo ratings, and then shrink back with the passage of time, but these guys are very experienced at what they're doing. They admit that there's a margin of error, but, over a long period of time, haven't they been around about the right order of magnitude with their ratings? If you don't believe that Tiger is significantly over 2600 Fide, then in the recent past, something has gone very wrong in the SSDF team. >Finally, A beats B, and B beats C, does not mean that A beats C. To find out if >A beats C, pit it against C and find out. Here, you appear to be saying that the Elo rating system does not actually work. According to your last sentence, two players who have obtained Elo ratings would, in reality, have no idea how well they would do against each other unless they actually played one another! So - in the real world, an Elo rating provides you with no information about how good a chessplayer is... -g > Albert Silver
This page took 0.02 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.