Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 13:38:59 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 13:50:46, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >[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. If this kind of positions would have been an issue in real games it would habe been solved 30 years ago. Ed >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 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.