Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:18 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2002 at 16:02:47, Roy Eassa wrote: > >Let's see what statements BOTH sides can agree on: > >1) In most highly open, tactical positions, the strongest computers are usually >stronger than even the strongest GMs. > >2) In many more-closed positions the strongest GMs are stronger than any >computers. > >3) A GM can maximize his chances and thus minimize the computer's chances by >avoiding the types of positions in #1 and creating those in #2. THIS IS A SKILL >UNTO ITSELF. Here is a cute question: We are going to play a game where each of us (two player game) has a coin. I can show you either a head or a tail, and you do the same to me. We both show our coins simultaneously. If we both show heads, you owe me $1. If we both show tails, you owe me $3. If we show different (head for me tail for you or vice-versa) I pay you $2. Do you play this game with me? (Hint: it looks evenly matched but it favors me) This is the situation with GM players vs Computers. If they know how to unbalance the game then they increase their chances. If they "play chess" then they will find problems.. > >4) The skill described in #3 is a somewhat DIFFERENT one from that which each GM >has focused on over his lifetime. Not completely different, but certainly not >identical either. > >5) Nowhere near as much time has been spent by humans over the centuries at the >skill described in #3. Besides the fact that it is obviously a very NEW skill, >historically speaking, there also has not been a financial incentive for >spending YEARS OF HARD WORK (like GMs do with traditional chess skills) >developing this new skill. > >6) There are some non-GMs that apparently have the new skill in greater degrees >than the top GMs appear to. This is probably true because there is a far larger >sample size of non-GMs than GMs in the world and because few GMs can afford >(money-wise) to divert their attention to this new skill. I think the difference is for another reason. GMs got where they were by playing their own brand of chess. And they have perfected it to a level that most only dream of. Lower-rated players are still looking for that "niche" they can play in and do well, and by "thinking outside the box" they manage to give computers a lot of trouble... The GMs, however, want to maintain their "edge" without diving into new waters, so they tend to play normal chess and have their troubles... > > >One could reasonably conclude that today's GMs are are simply quite WEAK at this >new skill THUS FAR. > >In order to consistently beat top computers, a human will require BOTH great >chess skill and ALSO high "avoid heavy tactics" skill. One without the other >will probably not lead to a human consistently beating the top computers. > >It will be interesting, IMHO, to watch the race: GMs improving this new skill as >the years go on (the best ones probably can't improve their traditional chess >skill very quickly any more), versus computers getting faster and "smarter."
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.