Author: stuart taylor
Date: 22:01:48 06/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 00:44:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. What really interests me is, how well would a computer rate if its ratio of tactical/mechanical prowess vs. positional understanding, would be similar to that of humans? This, I think is more interesting for a human to know, than when he doesn't know how much percentage of his effort is competing against something which is almost like a maths calculator. (as opposed to applied intelligence) S.Taylor
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.