Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:36:24 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 14:08:06, Bob Durrett wrote: > >The chess-playing program USER's perspective: > >To whom do you turn to get the very best advice regarding how to play from some >chess position? Or to get the best information on openings? > >You do NOT turn to your chess program, at least not for the final answer. > >Instead, you try to find the answer as given by one of the top-ranked GMs. No,most of the players have not 2700 GM's as friends so they use the top programs. > >Why? Because the top GMs are MUCH better at chess than the top programs >available to most people. [Most people cannot afford big mainframes.] If you do not mean to the players above 2700 then you are wrong. Deep Junior did 50% against players with average rating of above 2700 in the last tournament time control that it played. Another advantage of top programs is that you can ask them to analyze a position for hours. > >Also, the chess-playing programs still come up with bad moves much to often for >anybody to RELY on the computer's "wisdom." GM's also play often bad moves otherwise they could get better results against chess programs. > >There are still people out there who like to play chess without the help of >their chess-playing programs. And many of these people wish to improve their >game. After they lose a game, they want to know why. So, they turn to their >chess-playing program on their home PC [The strongest possible program is what >one wants here!], to the published literature [especially games heavily >annotated by top GMs], and if extremely lucky they consult a very strong player >in person. > >But it is not such an easy thing to consult the literature, especially if the >critical position(s) which occurred in the games did not get discussed in the >literature. For most people, it is also virtually impossible to access top-GMs. > >One might argue that the average rating of the rated chessplayers are at about >the 1600 level and such chessplayers really don't need the help of top-GMs. No >need in arguing that point. It's true enough. > >But . . . it is really irritating to know in advance that your trusty >chess-playing software is going to give you bad advice occasionally. > >The current crop of chess-playing software has not yet met the standard of >playing flawlessly at the top-GM level. Deep Junior got 50% against top GM's so I do not think that you are right about it. Obviously. But when that time comes, >the need for opening books [based on the games of the top GMs] will disappear >and a human will be able to find the best opening moves from their computer >programs. > >We need chess-playing computer programs which are smart enough to come up with >opening moves which are as good as, or better than, those produced by the top >GMs, without resorting to stored opening books. There are cases when computers can find novelties that are better than moves that were played in the past. Kramnik played a novelty against kasparov that programs without opening book have no program to find. [Especially true if those books >are merely collections of games produced by mere humans.] > >And we need chess-playing programs which never play dumb moves, or almost never, >i.e. dumb only 0.0001% of the time. I guess that you will see programs beating all humans before you see this happens. > >Until that time comes, there is still a need for improvement in chess-playing >programs. Not to play against, but to use for analyses. I agree that chess programs can be improved and they are improved every year. Uri
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.