Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:51:03 06/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2000 at 13:42:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Wow! And still you call yourself a novice. That's style! > >>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. Of course this might be possible. Only - also that fact seems to prove my assumption. They are simply not interested. That they are innocent is hard to believe. Khalifman for example is using a chess database since 1991. And with that base he always had the included chess engines! In a way your authentic report is somehow proving my theory about aristocracy among chessplayers. In a way playing seriously against a computer (apart from training) seems to be of little interest. Different if you can make money just by accepting e.g. ChessBase's proposal to play the newest version of FRITZ... > >>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. Possible. But you should not confuse GM Roman D., who has mainly left serious chess, with the actual elite of players. For them the forced play against a computer in their tournaments is an odd thing. Something not to be taken for serious. Don't take me as arrogant but the 'Hail Van Wely!' exclamations after that trivial computergame go a bit too far. From the standpoint of serious tournament chess this game does not make much sense. It is reminding you on the chess of the 19th century at best... :-) Hans Gerber > >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.