Author: Mark Young
Date: 02:37:09 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 04:38:47, martin fierz wrote:
>On June 18, 2001 at 17:28:55, Mark Young wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>I think it is important to understand what it means to be an average Grandmaster
>>when discussing what we mean by GM strength for computers. Some in this forum
>>seem to insist that computers must perform like the Elite Grandmaster’s. Before
>>anyone considers them to be playing at Grandmaster strength.
>>
>>This shows a lack of understanding in what a normal Grandmaster is, and what the
>>true strength of a normal or average grandmaster is, and their abilities, and
>>Elo status.
>[snip]
>
>in my team there are 4 players with a swiss rating of about 2300 - two of them
>are fide masters and 2 are not (i am one of the 'not'). is there a difference?
>and where is it? real playing strength at the chess board, what we would call
>performance, and what is reflected by the rating, is a number - *one* number.
>however, this number is the result of many different factors. example: 2 of
>these 4 players really know much more about chess than i do, but they often
>get into time trouble. when i discuss positions with them, i see completely
>clearly that they understand more than i do. but in a practical game they are
>no better than i am because they often blunder in time trouble. another one
>of us 4 has this incredible memory - he isnt working harder on his
>openings than the others, but he just remembers. a part of his strength is
>that he plays the opening very well because he knows so much. one of the 2
>time trouble guys has a rather unstable love life and has big ups and
>downs because this affects him.
>our 2 time trouble guys have 2400 understanding - if they play an IM and dont
>get into time trouble, they can outplay him and win. i have also won a couple
>of games against IMs but it was mostly just a lucky punch because i calculate
>well and they dont when they are in time trouble - i don't outplay them because
>i don't understand chess on a 2400 level.
>
>what i want to tell you with this is: computers will equal the performance of
>a grandmaster in a tournament - i think we all agree on this. 2500 is GM
>strength. but in the sense of understanding, they are a long way off.
It is not relevant to argue what computer’s and human’s understand about chess,
that is apples and oranges.
What is important is how computers perform in games, and as you seem to agree
computers are performing at a GM level. It is very hard to ignore the data that
backs up this claim.
What you and others who argue that computers lack to much understanding in chess
have to reconcile is. How do computers who supposedly lack so much understanding
in chess, consistently out perform most human grandmasters who posses so much
more chess wisdom and understanding?
Here a some possibilities:
1. Understanding in chess is overrated
2. Average human grandmasters have less understanding then most people
think.
3. The best computer chess programs posses more understanding in chess
then we realize.
4. Performance in chess comes down to winning, and no amount of chess
knowledge can change the outcome of games if you can’t beat your
opponent.
5. Pure calculation is more important in games then human chess knowledge,
wisdom, and understanding.
>
>cheers
> martin
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.