Author: Mark Young
Date: 04:13:18 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 06:43:06, Bill Gletsos wrote: >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. Why sure I can....You just seen me do it Bill. > > >> >>> >>>>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.