Author: blass uri
Date: 19:23:46 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 18:37:38, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Readers, > >Uri wrote, "I think that if the human who help the computer is not a bad player >and have experience with computers and also takes the challange seriously then >the team of human and computer will probably win." > >I agree. Although no final results have yet occured in our 4 game match, I think >I have demonstrated generally superior play to date than the chess engines. >Their one claim to superiority is total attention to tactical/calculating >detail. I think it is difficult seaching as broadly and deeply as the chess >engines do with each an every move. In short, they miss very little withing >their search horizon. However, their technical skills are weak. Thus, when a >knowledgeable human teams up with a computer chess engine, the human should be >able to focus the computer's calculating strength in areas that make sense to >search. Then, I think I would find it very difficult to win a 4 game match. > >While this improvement in computer technology is exciting, I do think it >ultimately may ruin the desire to play Correspondence Chess for many of us. It >is rumored that most CC players already use computers to generate moves. Well, >to date I have not found it very difficult to win ICCF Master tourneys, although >I'll never know if my opponents had chess engine help. I presume that if they >did indeed have such help, they must not have been using hardware/software as >powerfull as the opponents I'm now playing. I agree. From my experience in the 3/4 final of the Israeli correspondence championship even players with rating of 2400 do not give computers hours to analyze positions and do tactical mistakes that computers can avoid at long time control. Still, I know many CC players who >are considering abandoning CC play, since fewer opponents now make tactical >errors/slips that used to be seen more commonly before computers had an >influence. Others have also remarked that the style of computer chess is >unappealing to them, since the machine's focus is usually directed toward >winning material rather than toward playing for a "concept". > >Anyway, it's something to think about as CC is now tarnished by the thought that >top players are not relying soley upon their own skills, but instead have >external help that can be purchased commercially. As for myself, I'll just >continue to rely on my own skills (or lack thereof) since I don't enjoy a game >where the lack of challenge to my ability is removed by reliance upon a tool. > >Uri, would you be willing to be the human partner to a chess engine in a future >match series versus an unaided human (possibly me, if my wife let's me do this >again)? I think your natural skills plus your knowledge of computers and chess >engines would make you a very formidable opponent for any human CC player. > >All the very best, > >Stephen Ham Maybe. I do not promise to be the human partner. I also do not know if Fritz and nimzo are the best programs for correspondence games(some people claim that slow searchers are better at correspondence time control but I do not know if they are right). Programs are getting better and maybe it is better to use other programs for the next match. Uri
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.