Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 09:47:36 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. In *theory* chess is indeed only moves. So if any human or machine succeeds in calculating all the possibilities then I'd agree that being able to calculate is all that you need to do. Fortunately however we all know that in *practice* this is very far from the reality - the amount of calculating required, far exceeds the ability of any human or machine. Therefore, we need to support our calculation with other thinking methods, i.e. strategy and positional considerations. These are absolutely essential in helping to guide our thoughts through the overwhelming amount of possibilities. When the author of the article mentions Kasparov's lack of understanding of what chess is, it only succeeded in emphasising to myself the author's lack of understanding of chess. In fact, anyone who thinks it is possible to win the world championship without having a good understanding of chess, is frankly showing a lack of common sense. Chess is definitely not just tactics. For example, when a players castles, is it normally because they have calculated that it is the only way to avoid checkmate? Or is it because their strategic and positional considerations guide them on the basis of king safety (and development of a rook)? It is generally the second reason. By all means, tactical considerations need to come into play too as castling could lead to checkmate, loss of material, etc. etc. but it is not the only consideration. The fact is that chess is too complex for any player to play well on the basis of calculation alone. Talking about a theoretical machine that can calculate everything is a valid point, but not a realistic one (not for the near future anyway!). Remember that Deep Blue had lots of positional considerations in its evaluation function - it was not a case of finding checkmate or not. Gordon
This page took 0.01 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.