Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 10:04:22 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 12:04:36, Roy Brunjes wrote: >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 There is little point in getting carried away with theoritical possibilites. We are a long way away from having a machine that can play top level chess on the basis of calculation alone. All of the top chess programs have lots of chess knowledge. Their playing ability would be greatly decreased if they had this knowledge removed and had to play on the basis of calculation alone. Do you realise how many possibilities there are in the game of chess? Do you really think that this can be solved by brute force alone? In theory, yes. But for practical purposes, it is necessary to think about tactics and strategy and positional considerations... etc. Finally, the article was discussing chess in the general sense and not just from a computer chess point of view. In that sense, chess will never be just tactics. Gordon
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.