Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:59:54 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 14:47:26, Laurence Chen wrote: >.<snip> >> >>But . . . it is really irritating to know in advance that your trusty >>chess-playing software is going to give you bad advice occasionally. >> >I gather that you never heard of the "Pareto" Theory, it is alright to be >correct 80% of the time, and miss 20%. Humans also make mistakes, and they make >far more mistakes than computer engines. At least the chess engine is >consistent with its mistakes, the human is much more unpredictable. What it >boils down to is that some chess positions, the chess engine still have >difficults with, especially in closed positions, where maneuvering and placement >of pieces is the key. Human GM's excel in this area, however, remember that it >has taken many years for a chess engine to come this far to excel in open games. > No human GM would play against the chess engine in open positions. They would >certainly loose 99% of the the games. So you are complaining that because chess >engines evaluated closed positions, or positions which require maneuvering wrong >the chess engine is useless. Quite the contrary, how many human players do you >know will play closed positions? Very few games played by 1600 ELO players are >closed positions. I've seen very few games from this category play the players >playing the Stonewall formation. Also Kasparov use the chess engine for his >training, I remember that Kasparov said in an interview that (Fritz) helped him >to improve his ability to calculate deeper and more accurately. Yet, in the >games played by Kasparov you won't find closed positions, stonewall formation, >when he plays against other GMs. He goes for dynamic positions, semi-open >positions. And some chess engines are capable of playing well and analyzing >well in these type of positions. Yes, there will come a time when the chess >engine will play perfect chess, when that time comes it will certainly be the >death of chess. Why would anyone want to play the game, if a machine is capable >of playing flawless chess to a perfection. Which human wouldn't use the >machine, and all the games would end up in a draw. So what is the point of >reaching chess perfection? If reaching this perfection will bring the game to >its doomsday!!! My two cents worth. >Laurence Good observations. Thanks. The conclusion that perfection of chess-playing programs would be the death of chess needs closer examination. I'm not sure that's right. At least my "magic crystal ball" doesn't tell me that. Lots of people like to play chess against their chess-playing software. I am not one of them. Play against my favorite chess program [Fritz]makes me feel very unhappy. I don't like to be unhappy. So I don't do it. But, that doesn't slow me down one bit when it comes to playing chess on the internet against humans. I really enjoy doing that. The fact that Fritz can play better chess than I do is really irrelevant and not even something that bothers me at all when I am playing chess against another human. I use my chess engine [Fritz] a lot, as well as using ChessBase database software. These are extremely useful tools, in my way of thinking. I like useful tools! Perhaps, instead of producing "the death of chess," the availability of really great software tools would actually PROMOTE human/human chess. The software tools help me to prepare for future games and to understand better what happened in games I've already played. They also help me to understand and analyze published chess literature. Surely the same is true for all chessplayers [except those who have such limited time that they cannot use these tools, or are just beginning to play chess]. Chess software tools promote the development of chess theory. As you say, people like Kasparov do use these tools. I bet they enjoy doing that, too. Who does not want better tools? Did the invention of the skill saw make all carpenters, who had been using hand saws before the skill saws became available, quit? No, and neither would the chessplayers. Incidentally, your analysis about open and closed positions is very interesting.
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.