Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 13:44:21 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 16:05:12, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Jouni and James, > >Thanks gentlemen for your kind words and support. I'm almost too embarrassed to >post here anymore after my terrible oversight in Ham-Nimzo 7.32. I can accept a >few human tactical slips from time to time. But to miss the simple ...g4 line as >a saving defense for the computer is nearly unforgivable since I'm supposed to >be the strategist! Oh well...there goes another win that I was counting on! > >If you are interested, please feel welcome to visit The Correspondence Chess >Message Board where some discussion of this match is occuring. We would sure >value the input of you computer experts, since most of us really know very >little about chess software, although many participants there do have/use >computers in their correspondece chess. > >I've learned much from Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32. Most of all, I've learned that >if I'm to have a successful future in correspondence chess, I'll need to use a >strong chess engine to blunder check my work. Just two blunder checks at the >appropriate time would surely have enabled me to quickly win in Ham-Fritz 6a and >to have won my "won" position in Ham-Nimzo. > >I knew when I played my Dragon Sicilian against Nimzo 7.32 that I'd be entering >a world where pure calculating ability is often more important than positional >understanding. And I knew that the wide open Dragon postions would be exactly >what the computer wants. Still, given that I'm supposed to play as if my >opponents were human means that I need to take these risks in order to really >test the opposition. > >However I can't help but question whether these chess engines have any capacity >to win a game on their own. What I mean is, I've tried hard to unbalance all 4 >games in order to really keep things exciting and test the computers. But had I >chosen to play conservatively, even in the Dragon Sicilian, I think these chess >engines would be incapable of outplaying most master humans to the extent that >they would win any games. They excel at exploiting human tactical errors when >the humans push too hard to win, but they can't otherwise outplay humans. I >think chess software needs to have a greater positional understanding so that it >can accumulate small "positional" advantages to defeat humans at their own game. >Until this happens, we master-rated humans need not worry about actually losing >to computer chess engines. Still, it's no fun giving them drws either. > >Well, thanks for allowing me ramble on, as if I really knew what I am writing >about. You have all been very courteous and I thank you for that. > >Stephen Ham If you, or any skilled player, played for a draw at these time controls, (and knew you were playing a computer) nothing could stop you. Ralf
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.