Author: Tania Devora
Date: 14:16:51 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 14:03:40, Garry Evans wrote: >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. >> >>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 ;-} > > > The End Result is what really counts don't you think? If my tournament results >equal grandmaster strength regardless of how lousy I play the endgame, does it >really matter? In human chess we find the same type of pattern you'll have >grandmasters who excel tremendously in one aspect of the game, but play >miserably in another, this fact does not mean they are not grandmasters. All I >am asking is that we apply the same standards to machines as we do to humans, >since we all play the same game. Chess is Chess, just like mathmatics is >mathmatics, it matters not how we reach our solutions in math as long as we get >the correct answer!. Good answer Garry! I am totally agree with that! Regards Tanya,D.
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.