Author: mike schoonover
Date: 17:59:41 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 19:02:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 27, 2001 at 17:37:22, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 27, 2001 at 17:29:34, Louis Fagliano wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2001 at 17:13:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2001 at 16:14:22, Will Bundy wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have any opinions on Which programs play the Most like a Human >>>>>Grandmaster in terms of strategy and Tactics? I am aware that Computers do not >>>>>have the Understanding of Chess that Grandmasters have, but what programs are >>>>>able to simulate Grandmaster Play the Most? >>>> >>>>None of them. The play is very different. A computer program searches with >>>>almost flawless precision to find tiny fractions of a pawn advantage and any >>>>tactical shot like grabbing a pawn. >>>> >>>>Human GM's don't play like that for the most part. Polgar and Morphy are >>>>tactical sorts, but most GM's have a very different style from computers. >>>> >>>>CS-Tal plays wild "pirates pouring over the walls" attacks. >>>>Gambit Tiger apparently is made to understand gambits to some degree. >>>> >>>>But really, you can't compare the play very well. >>>> >>>>Both machines and top human experts play exceptional chess games. But the way >>>>that they go from "point a" to "point b" is not the same at all. >>>> >>>>IMO-YMMV. >>> >>>I'm not sure if I or Dann Corbit understood Will Bundy's question right. When >>>Will Bundy said "plays closest to a human grandmaster" what does "plays" mean? >>> >>>How a computer searches for a move compared to a human GM or how similar the >>>move played (by whatever heuristics) is compared to what a human GM would play >>>in the same position. >>> >>>Dann Corbit interpreted the question as how a human GM searches compared to a >>>computer searching which is quite obviously very different. >>> >>>But I think Will Bundy's question was not differences in search techniques >>>between human GM's a nd computers but the final result. In other words, if you >>>were given some game scores of Kramnik's, Kasparov's, Anand's, Fritz 7's, Chess >>>Tiger 14.0's, and Junior 7's games (against other humans and this is important) >>>but were not told which was which, could you tell just by playing over the games >>>which were human GM vs. human GM games and which were computer vs. human GM >>>games and if so, which program would simulate the play of a human GM the >>>closest? >> >>None of them. >> >>All of the good programs will definitely find tactical shots that the GM's >>missed. They would make these moves instead. >> >>Most of the good programs will be very much fooled by gambits. >> >>Most of the good programs will be greatly puzzled by positional moves. >> >>Try LCT II's tough problems, NOLOT, etc for a taste of this. >> >>Try analyzing this game with a computer and tell me which one actually finds all >>the optimal moves: >>ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/game-of-the-week/strategy.pgn > >It is clear that there are cases when you can be almost sure which side is the >computer from looking at the game(in cases that one side made a tactical mistake >that is typical to humans or a positional mistakes that is typical to computers >but not all the games have tactical mistakes or big positional mistakes that >humans avoid and there are cases when you cannot know based on a game without >analyzing it with the right program which side is the computer. > >There is a meaning to the question which program can create the illusion that >it is a strong human in more cases. > >Uri tactical play,positional play....?,mmm...; still dont like being beat by a switch matrix for a over grown silicon diode. :) mike
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.