Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 16:20:54 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2002 at 17:47:16, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 11, 2002 at 16:09:32, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>Don't you think, as I state in another post that most GM's are so proud of their >>own style of playing chess and also confident in their ability in this game that >>to betray their own way of playing just to beat a "stupid silicon thing" is >>often *just* not taken in account by the majority of them ? >> >>e.g. of a GM's possible thought : >>"Why do I have to modify my superior style of playing to cheat you little piece >>of silicon , you inferior piece of hardware compared to me "homo sapiens >>sapiens" perfect product of millions of years of evolution !" >> > > >Here's what I said over there: > >"I don't think ALL grandmasters will develop super anti-computer skills, but I >think SOME will add this new skill to their repertoire. > >Really, all it will take is ONE to change everything. > >(IMO it IS a separate skill from what GMs have already developed, but they will >need BOTH skills in abundance to consistently beat the top computers. Most GMs >probably won't care much about beating computers, but I'm guessing that a few >will.)" > > >But here's something else: I don't think it's necessarily a betrayal of their >style. It might be a small modification of their preferred move at certain >junctures, but a complete betrayal of their style is probably overstating what's >necessary IMHO. > >Also, I doubt too many GMs think humans are perfect; if they do think that, they >can just play a few highly tactical games against computers and that will >quickly teach them otherwise. :-) They even don't have to play against a computer to see that they are not right there still i a guy called Gary Kasparov Cabaplana did write a book in which he more explained the games he lost then he won. Eduard Gufeld admited that he is not a chess genius like Fischer or Kasparov who always are\where able to come up with a new chess briliancy. So it is not so that all GM's do think they are always right and that they always do handle the right style. It also is dificult to say what the right style is as long as the game is not fuly searched out.(There for I also analyzed some games starting with 1.h3 and 1.c3 The tellings of Kramnik should not be generalized neither. Kramnik is only 1 of the many GM's I think the fact is a Computer makes mistakes which a human would not make and the other way around. Programmers try to eliminated or decrease the amount of mistakes made by computers each year Increasing positional knowledge is very important for this mather Deeper search depth might help too. And I am not talking about hardware here. Humans only increase their theoretical knowledge each year You can't realy say that their chess style improves each year. Like in the beginning from the 19th century to the 90's When there was a real improvement in style by the years,after that it slowed down. Ok I know that it is not nice to read this for a GM because his level might be much higher then these hero's from the past But his contribution to the game is not as high. Well I will not say this about Gary but I also mentioned the 90's because then he developed his style. Outside the game I think he tried many things to improve chess In which he failed Ok I don't know the exact story but I think it is save to say that he tried it. And still does I only don't like the way he tried to solve his problems. But I think he finaly became old and wise. Regards Marc
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.