Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:42:12 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 21:43:40, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 20:17:36, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On June 14, 2000 at 18:51:10, Hans Gerber wrote: >>[snip] >>>Yes, in general. But in certain special positions programs make big mistakes. >> >>[snip again] >>>Now we have the problem of sense. In my opinion it does not make sense if we >>>compared human beginners with good computer programs. Let us compare masters and >>>machines since the claim is that machines could at least play like a master. In >>>my opinion this is not true. For the reason that machines still have too many >>>weaknesses in certain positions. >> >>For positional moves, gambit sort of moves, sacrifices, and things of that >>nature, computers often play like a 1400 player. For tactical moves, computers >>play like a 2800 player. >> >>I have seen computers do horrible, ridiculous gaffes in the early endgame that >>anyone who has played one hundred games would not make. >> >>But in a 50 move game the odds that somewhere, sometime you won't see a deep >>snare are very high. That's why the computers play so well. They are the best >>"piece snackers" around. If there is a way to spear something hidden deeply >>away somewhere, they will unerringly find it. >> >>I think if the GM's learned how to play anti-computer it would shave two or >>three hundred points off the computer ratings. > > >Thank you, that was a good clarification. And I take for sure that yourself are >a computerchess expert?! More of a novice, but I am not bashful about sharing my ideas. I am writing a chess program and I have made modifications to many chess programs and understand their basic workings. I am something of an expert on computer science, as I have been programming since 1976, have taught the C programming language in college, and have been the author of programming articles in magazines and I am co-author of a new C language book. >Let me point out that the reason for the situation we have (that >anti-computerchess is not so much liked) is mainly a more or less aristocratic >self-image of chessplayers in general. Independent of the rank chessplayers have > a very special understanding of pride. So a real chessplayer would not accept >any pawn or pieces advantages even if it goes against the World Champion. The >same with playing a computer. Pride tells them to play normal chess and not >trying second-best moves just to bust the machine. I am not sure this is true. Much of the time, I think they simply don't know the strategies to play against computers. I have exchanged emails with famous GM's who have played high profile matches, and I can tell you that some of them do not know how to play against a computer. >BTW that is the content of >the history of such computergames against prominent GM's. Humans tend to allow a >draw much more frequently than against GM opponents of the same category. The >other day Mr. Villegas reported what Karpov had told him after their game. >Karpov confessed that he even had started to play real chess. All what he had to >do was making his choice in the dictionary of his collected patterns. In other >words you can't expect the master to examin the concrete position. He will rely >on a more general view. Or differently put: he won't start to calculate deep >lines but will rely on his feeling based on his experience. > >Computers do have so many weaknesses that it would be easy for such chessplayers >to exploit them. But you know chessplayers don't the the reason why they should >play such dull chess. Chessplayers always want to create some good games. I think you can create good games against computers. Have you seen the Anti-computer chess page of Raphael Vasquez? http://www.angelfire.com/on/anticomputer/index.html >The situation is different if you are a weaker player and you might succeed >against very strong machines if you use certain "anti" strategies. For such >players this can be very satifying, also intellectually. > >GMs however are used to play against creative opponents. That is fun for them. >Not proving that they are able to beat a machine that has no own imagination. I wonder if this is really so. What I mean by that is the generalization. I suspect they would receive satisfaction from pounding the stuffings out of machines - at least on high-profile public matches. Wouldn't you? Now, some GM's may feel exactly as you state. But I suspect you can't group them all in a box and say, "This is how they feel." because they are all individuals, just as you and I are.
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.