Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Why Computer are not Grandmasters in strength.

Author: odell hall

Date: 23:00:44 06/12/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 13, 2001 at 00:00:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On June 12, 2001 at 22:52:19, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>
>>Perhaps the debate could be clarified - well, I will try to do so- a little bit
>>if we discern between brute strenght showed by results and the quality of a
>>game, mainly grounded in positional understanding. In this last aspect I cannot
>>but to agree with you Bob; programs are not GM in quality of the game they
>>offer. That's clear. Nevertheless, in terms of results, maybe the other guy has
>>a point. Probably this is a tricky issue because chess games usually ends for a
>>tactical reason a lot of times, so the positional aspect is hidden. A computer
>>could be positionally busted and even so win the game because in the last minute
>>the human  side missed a blow. It has happened to me -an to infinite human chess
>>player- thousands of times and I think it happens all the time to GM, although
>>in a lot more higher ground of finesse. So, in the paper, measured from a point
>>of view of "pure" chess, programs ar at most 2100 or 2200 players; in the realm
>>of facts, of rsults, they win enough times to be considered, I believe IM
>>strenght players, sometimes even more.
>>Fernando
>
>
>I don't disagree there at all.  IM is believable in a way, because the
>difference between an IM and a GM is a _wide_ gulf of knowledge and experience.
>
>But you can't survive on tactics _all_ the time.  The opponents simply stop
>letting the game get tactical...


 Hi Bob

  Okay, i think i read a post of yours where you said Computers are not
Grandmasters, because a Real human Grandmaster would never make some of the
moves you have seen computers make, Am I correct?, is this your view? But can't
one use the same thinking to say the a Human Master would not make some of the
imbicile computer positional moves that computers make, so then we could say
computers are not even masters? Accoridng to your reasoning would not this
assumption be correct?



This page took 2.44 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.