Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:56:08 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 17:22:14, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 16:22:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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) > > > me : tail(25%) --> - 1 for me > / > you : tail(50%) -- > / \ > / me : head(25%) --> + 2 for me >--- > \ me : tail(25%) --> + 2 for me > \ / > you : head(50%) -- > \ > me : head(25%) --> - 3 for me > >conclusion : wining expectancy : 0 !!! > >Where's the flaw ??? > I didn't say "flip a coin". I said I can show either a head or a tail, at my _choice_ (not at random choice)... > >> >>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.