Author: odell hall
Date: 23:26:23 06/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2001 at 22:16:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 12, 2001 at 09:18:00, Mark Young wrote: > >> >>Bob, GM opinion does not even factor into weather someone is a GM or not. They >>do not poll GM's and ask If X is a GM. What matters is Wins, Losses, and Draws, >>and who the Wins, Losses, and Draws were against, Example you must score well in >>tournaments that meet the norms, and for tournament to meet the norm they must >>have GM's playing in them. You do not need to be a Grandmaster to understand >>this. >> >>Grandmasters are not determined by opinion but Results! > > > >Yes. But take the following examples: > >1. a "GM baseball pitcher"... definition: consistently (over N where N is >pretty small number of games) strikes out 13 batters per game pitched. You >find a "prodigy" that can _only_ throw a 102 MPH slider. Nobody is going to >hit him at first, as a slider that fast would be impossible for anyone to deal >with. He strikes out 20 batters per game for his first 10 games. You then >declare him a "GM pitcher". But the real "experts" think "Wait a minute, >a 102mph slider is _all_ he can throw... what happens when batters catch on >to hitting that pitch?" And they _know_ he won't be a GM pitcher for long. > >2. A "GM tennis player"... definition: wins N% of the matches he plays over >a fairly small number of matches played. This guy develops a _terrific_ topspin >forehand that is giving everyone problems. And he wins match after match. But >the "experts" think "Hey, all he can hit is a topspin forehand shot. What >happens when the opponents learn to return that to his backhand?" > >Etc. > >That is where computer chess is today. We bring a program that sees very >accurately in many tactical cases. And the tactics are overwhelming the GM >players at the moment. But again, the "experts" see "Hey, what happens when >the GMs start avoiding the tactics? The computer doesn't understand closed >positions, some pawn endings, good vs bad bishops, weak square complexes, pawn >lever opportunities/necessities, king safety, .... How will they survive once >the tactics are taken away or dealt with?" > >So yes, a computer might produce some cute results. In 1981 I had my program >go thru a state closed championship and blow everyone out, including the >first real win over a USCF-rated master in tournament play. But I _knew_ that >it had some _serious_ flaws. It just found itself in tactical positions where >the humans had little chance of coping. Yet we _almost_ lost to a 1700 player >in the first round, because he _knew_ how to play computers. He was winning >handily and made one horrendous move that let the roof fall in. (this >tournament win by a computer made the Chess Life magazine that year as it was >the first such win _ever_ by a computer. It was also the last as the humans >started paying attention...) > > >It happened back then. It is happening today. But until the majority of the >holes are filled, a day of reckoning will happen... Bob that's just it, Tactics is alot more important then you realize, humans will never overcome the problem of tactics, some one once said tactics is 90% of the game. Garry kasparov problem with deepblue was tactics, he had superior positions most games, but he always had to walk though a tactical minefield, and the computers had the advantage of having calm nerves, If what you say is true, that computer play positional chess at the 2000 level, then why does your friend Roman lose 70% of his games to crafty??? I think is is hard for a reasonable person to buy the ideal that humans are better even though they lose more often. It makes no sense to say the A is better then B, even though A loses 70% of the time.
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.