Author: Bill Gletsos
Date: 03:43:06 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 06:30:45, Mark Young wrote: >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. You cant use the IM norm argument above as substantiating your claim re the GM norms. A IM norm only has a TPR requirement of 2450 with a rating requiremnt of 2400. For weak players it is much easier to get the IM norm in this case but not the rating. The same cannot be said for GM norms where because the norm TPR is 100 points above the rating its harder to get the norms. > >> >>>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.