Author: Mark Young
Date: 03:30:45 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 06:08:18, martin fierz wrote: >On June 19, 2001 at 05:37:09, Mark Young wrote: > >>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. > >i agree - BTW, for those who say that it's also norms and not only rating - i >know lots of people who made IM norms - i also know somebody who has 10! IM >norms but no title - he never made the rating. i know no single person who >consistently had the rating but didnt make the title. I agree and that is what I have argued, the Elo standard in the fide rules for qualification to become a Grandmaster (2500+ Elo rating not TPR’s) is the hardest requirement to meet. It is much easier to perform will over a short duration that meets the TPR requirements, but it is much more difficult to perform will over a long period of time and have the consistency to earn a true 2500+ Elo rating. > >>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. > >there is nothing to reconcile here - humans blunder, that is all. chess is not >tennis - in tennis, pete sampras can hit a ball way out of the tennis court and >still win the match 6-0 6-0. in chess, once you blunder a piece you are dead >lost. so i don't believe that its points 1-3 in you list, and also not really >points 4 and 5 - they contain some truth, i think. you should reformulate >5. as "pure calculation is enough to beat anybody who blunders a piece at >one point in the game". >just another example: 3 weeks ago, i won against a grandmaster for the >first time (gheorghiu). if you look at this game, then all i can say is that >he is by far the better player, but he lost. i was white, i set up my NCO += >position, we play 30 moves and i am positionally lost - there is no clear and >easy path to victory for him, material is equal, etc, but i have a terrible >position. how did i win? on move 35 (time control was at move 36) he blunders >and allows me to sacrifice a piece for an attack. he declines the sacrifice and >still is better probably but on move 37, after the time control and a 5 minute >think he makes a move which allows me to take a piece with my rook and if >he recaptures its mate in 6. he resigns. does this make me a better player than >him? no way. he played far better for 35 moves but much worse on 1. in chess >that is enough. this is the reason why computers can compete with grandmasters. >i assure you that a 1600 player who sees my game with gheorghiu would not >see that i am nearly lost - it looks pretty equal for a long time. he would >say: they played, the position was equal for the whole game, and the GM lost >after a nice sacrifice of white. if this game had been a tennis match, he >would have beaten me 6-0 6-1. you would say, he is a great player. but chess >is not tennis :-) - the 1600 player would not understand that >i am lost, would not see that the GM has outplayed me and would not appreciate >the strength of the GM. this is what is happening in computer chess all the >time. look at the deep blue vs. kasparov match. if my girlfriend who does not >play chess watches this match, all she can see is the result. she says, deep >blue won, so it is better than kasparov. i say, deep blue was very lucky >in this match. just from seeing the games it is clear who is the better player. >but kasparov blundered... > >there are many examples like this in other situations. take two violin players. >i am not into classical music, so if yehudi menuhin plays a simple tune or >if an average violin player plays it, i will not hear the difference. every >good violin player will hear the difference immediately. yehudi may get a tone >wrong, and i will hear it and say: i heard that - he's no good! but he is, even >if he gets one tone wrong. >or: i cannot tell apart a bottle of wine for 10$ from one for 100$ - i rather >drink beer. this doesnt mean that the wine for 10 bucks is just as good - i >just can't tell the difference because i have never trained my senses for this. > >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.