Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:39:54 07/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2001 at 15:00:37, K. Burcham wrote: > >after reading all the expert posts here on comps and GMs,,, >and all the other info available now an the internet. >and my personal experience, at ICC and chess.net with comps. > > >it seems we have the GM, and then we have the super GM. > >but it also seems we are supposed to say that even with the GM > or super GM, "if they get the program before a match, then---". >some say "the program lost because he used anti-comp tactics". >others say "GMs always study before a tournament with a comp". >some say that "there are even some GMs that don't own a program". >one very high rated player at chess.net, has in his notes, "I hate >computer programs, dont ask me to play your program". > >program comments everywhere these days. > >many opinions on the subject of GM vs comp. > > now with everyone owning 1000 mhz+, 1500 mhz are all over the internet now, >lots of dual processor workstations at 2000 mhz. > it seems everyone has all the top programs and is an expert at using them. > and with this forum answering all of our questions,,, > the level of expertise of the computer chess program operator has increased > dramatically. there are some at every server that can beat you at any > time with their program. > and not just the level of skill of the these operators, the number of > these expert program operators has increased also. > > so my point here is that all of these GM games are being analysed > by more individuals, with super badfast hardware and with totally amazing > programs. are these programs GM level? well we all have our opinions. > in the past the level of analysis of these top games by GMs was at the > same level as the chess person doing the analysis. > if you were an expert--you got an expert level of analysis. > if you were an IM---you got an IMs level of analysis. Not exactly, some people are really good analyzing the game and some are not. The classical example would be correspondence players. Some are not great OTB players but their analytical skills are outstanding. You can have super GM grade analysis from an MI, for instance, Dvorestsky. On the other hand you can have lousy analysis from great players and GMs... Many times due to laziness, but sometimes because their understanding is not up to par with their ELO... > sometime in the past we would see an article in a magazine by a GM, > analysing a world championship game. what were we getting back then? > back then it didnt matter, this guy was a GM, so we didnt question his > game anaylsis. > but now it is different.... Not much... we can question tactical details but the understanding of the position is still way above of the computers. > the GM level of play is being exposed. yes i know, some here said they > already knew this. that the GM could blunder at anytime. that the GM > can play into a position that he will lose a piece and the game. > but there are a lot of chess enthusiasts that are analysing these GM > games with their own programs at home, and witnessing the GM shortcomings > for themselves. we get to see at our own computer what the program would > have played. we can play with a position from one of these top games, > and try different moves to see the score change. each individual GM move > can be studied and changed like never before. it can be viewed with the > convenience of a monitor. we have at our disposal, instant position replays. > > dont get me wrong---these GMs are the baddest of the bad. > they have been blessed with advanced brain chess cells. > and yes i do know my level of play has its limitations. > > i am beginning to think that the top programs with the hardware that is > available today, are passing through the GM level of play. > i think we better enjoy all the controversy while we can, this wont > last too long. I believe that comps. are performing like strong GMs in competition. I have not doubt about it, but I will take the comments of a GM any day!!! the analysis of computers are not really good taken as is. They are a great tool to check the variations but can't perform long term planning yet. As an example, a young boy from this area reached expert level. I once asked him if he uses any computer and he said that he has fritz but it does not use it at all. He plays King Indian and could not use it to analyze the opening because many suggested moves were not in the spirit of the position. Even an expert realizes that. Not to mention when it comes to analyzing endgames. Regards, Miguel > > have you ever had a teacher, coach, or mentor, explain something to you? > and then you told him or her, "ohhhh now i see what you mean". > or you might say to the teacher, "could you explain that again". > > how many GMs study their own losses with a program? > and then they say in the privacy of their own home, "ohhhh now i see what > you mean". probably more than we think are doing this---and those that > aren't---will lose to those that are. > > yes i know we all have one,,,, no not that. an opinion. > these are some of mine, but they seem to be changing as i get older. > > kburcham
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.