Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 10:50:46 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
[D]4bk2/7r/4p1p1/rp1pPpPp/pPpP1P1P/P1P5/3K4/8 w - - 0 1 A boringly old example. As long as the first Elo 1200 player -and even I- can see this is draw, and any program can't, the statement "GM level" only goes for tactical calculating power. In my opinion the real strong chess player -be it master or grandmaster or whatever- has insight in the dynamics of the game, insight in the plans of his or her opponents, and a lot of creativity. He or she especially stands out in recognizing these kinds of standard situations and play or decide accordingly. The Mercedes engine of the McLarens was more powerful and faster than the Ferrari engine, no doubt a computerized driver would have outrun the mclaren any time, as it wouldn't make flaws in bends and turns. Yet the reason Schumacher took the WC is because of better overall insight, and sheer bluffing and trying. These elements make up a champion *at least* as much as technical abilities. The GM -performance is not something *mechanical*. Chess strenght can't be measured solely by bits and byte. It's insight, feeling. It's what computer programs still miss, be it a chess engine or the help wizard in Microsoft Office. Technically speaking chess engines have a baffling strenght I admire, yet knowing your opponents, recognizing positions and taking advantage of them is the other half they still miss on the way to become the real strong chess players they will be in time - but not now. Not yet. Jeroen ;-}
This page took 0.01 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.