Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:33:50 07/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2001 at 16:39:54, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. I believe that most of them use computers to help them. I believe that the main decision of the top correspondence players is simply which program to believe. There are some exceptions when they choose a move that no program likes but my guess is that in most of their game they do not need it. They use their brain but they are very careful about it because there are a lot of things that humans do not understand and not only about tactics. 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... I agree there are GM's who do not use computers for analysis and also almost do not waste time about the analysis when there are weak players who use computers+ lot of time to analyze interesting lines. Many times due to >laziness, but sometimes because their understanding is not up to par with their >ELO... I believe only in the first case. > >> 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. I disagree. There are a lot of cases when computers can find a good positional move by a deep search. There are cases when program A undersatnds the position when program B does not understand the position and you can learn about it by engine-engine games. Uri
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.