Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: ChessTiger 4 Wins – Grandmasters 4 Losses

Author: Otello Gnaramori

Date: 10:26:12 07/07/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 07, 2001 at 12:31:02, Peter Kappler wrote:

>
>Tactics are much more important.  We humans tend to over-estimate the importance
>of positional play, because it's our strength. :)
>

Very well said Peter,
Chess is probably 90% or more pertaining to tactics.

>Until recently, I was a member of the "computers aren't GM strength" camp, but
>it seems painfully obvious that that line has now been crossed.

Yes, it has been crossed quite recently.

>I've followed
>the debates here, and I find it amusing how much faith the nay-sayers place in
>the power of anti-computer playing style, as if an average GM can just spend a
>few weeks working on this skill, and suddenly his strength against computers
>will increase 200 or 300 points.

> I think it's more like several months of
>practice, with a potential gain of perhaps 100 points.  (And perhaps even this
>is nothing special - a GM can realize a significant relative strength gain
>against ANY opponent (computer or human) if he dedicates a large amount of time
>to studying their particular weaknesses, pet openings, etc.)

And also if the GM found potential weakness, it's difficult to reproduce them on
the "live" board.
And in anycase that weakness is going to be fixed in the next release...


>
>Given the recent 2700+ performances by Tiger and Junior, I think the machines
>will still be GM strength even against proper anti-computer play.  And with CPU
>speeds doubling every 12-18 months, this battle looks hopeless to me.  Remember
>that Tiger's recent result was on relatively slow hardware (866 MHz).

Exactly , they didn't use a megacomputer of 30 Million dollars like D.B.

>
>Everybody seems to agree that machines are World Champion strength at blitz, and
>Super-GM strength at rapid (30 min), so why all the controversy over GM strength
>at standard time controls?

I think it depends from human pride : it's hard to admit that a "stupid machine"
can achieve this levels of mastery in a pretty intellectual game.

>
>-Peter



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.