Author: Roy Brunjes
Date: 09:04:36 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 11:09:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >This is an extract from "How to become a Chess Master" by Ignacio Marin , I find >these words very enlightening for the recent debate here at CCC: > >"I was planning to talk about the long term requirements for developing as a >good chess player, but I have thought that it would be better to change the >order and to say a few things about the latest chess truth: CHESS IS TACTICS. >Well, yeah, Kasparov has won easily against Deep Blue so we can breath again. We >are not all bums (or at least Kasparov is not one...). But for me, there has >been a very funny moment in the match, something that seriously made me wonder >if all these was not prearranged (now, I don't think so). This moment was when >Kasparov "discovered" that Deep Blue is able to play good chess!!: > >"Mr. Kasparov: Yeah. Yesterday was not a good day. First I have to congratulate >the IBM team for a tremendous, tremendous job they've just done. What I >discovered yesterday probably is now clear to everyone. Now for the first time >we see the computer at chess and quantity becomes quality because the number of >the moves this monstrous machine can play in fact prevents it from making bad >positional mistake within reach of its calculation. And yesterday I think the >move D5 and B3 that was so human but what I realized that for machine it was >simple because it never lost a pawn within the tree of its calculations. > >Now for the first time we are playing not only with a computer but with >something that has its own intelligence. The depth of the computer's calculation >gives it certain positions understanding. Even as we saw today, machines don't >understand many things. But only if it goes beyond the depth of its >calculation." > >This was Kasparov's comment after the second game as appeared in the IBM page. > >What I found funny in this comment is his apparent absolute lack of >understanding of what chess is. Because Chess is ONLY moves in a chessboard, >chess is only tactics. If you calculate thoroughly enough you will beat Kasparov >and everybody else because "positional mistakes" simply don't exist: they are >simply tactical errors with long term consequences. Now I have two explanations: >1) Kasparov seriously was thinking before the match that chess is more than that >(kind of a magic that only humans can understand) and he is plainly stupid or 2) >This was just a publicity trick, and also a way of covering his back. You know, >this computer is sooo good that even won yesterday, it's sooo good that I really >have to fight to get the 400000$ and you will have to pay more next time, etc. >Now, I consider Kasparov to be a very intelligent man so I will bet on 2). >Unfortunately, if he is no stupid, at least he thinks we are, with these kind of >comments. > >So, yes, chess is only tactics and if your mind was good enough as to calculate >deeply you will be as good as Deep Blue, and maybe even better. That's higher >than our goal of 2200 FIDE ELO, right?. What are then the consequences of this >newly found truth?. That for playing chess, you have to know first and most >important how to calculate." > >Comments are welcome. > >Regards, >Otello. Otello, Spot on. I have believed this for decades since I first learned that computers could play chess. I find it interesting that many others apparently do not share this view. In the end, a games of chess can be won by just 100% calculation of variations. Some human skills like pattern matching go a long way toward forcing the computer to calculate even deeper, but eventually, sufficiently deep calculation will prevail. I do not think that computers are there yet, meaning that the cream of human players should still be able to win long matches vs computers (meaning PCs, not Deep Blue-like creations), but each year the task gets harder and harder. Roy
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.