Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:44:20 06/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 00:32:15, stuart taylor wrote: > Is it not true that human ratings are lower than computer ratings relative to >true standard of play due to the fact that humans make many blunders of the >nature that computers do not? > That is what I Have always beleived as being one of the reasons why computers >do as well as they do. > In other words, it could possibly be that 2650 on ssdf = 2550 against >well-prepared, top humans or even 2500 which is = 2400 in actual standard of >play, discounting tactical and mechanical extras. >Is this correct? What you are observing is that the strength of computers and the strength of humans is focused in different areas. Computers are tactically stronger than humans. Humans are positionally stronger than computers. If the human can avoid tactical blunders, they will win. However, suppose the chance is just 1% that the human will perform a tactical blunder. By 20 moves, the chances of not making a tactical blunder are only 80% and 74% by move 30. In other words, even in very mistake free chess, some tiny slip is likely to be generated. Often, this will result in some small material advantage. If the material advantage is large enough to offset the superior positional understanding of the human player, the computer will win. We might imagine two basketball teams. One has a bunch of short, quick guys. They are good at stealing and running the fast break. The other team has tall, slower guys. They are good at rebounding and shot blocking. Both teams play good basketball, but the styles are very different. Both teams can achieve the object, which is to win, but they go about it in a very different manner.
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.