Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 07:36:32 04/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2002 at 00:55:45, Vine Smith wrote: > >Since no one claims that humans can search 20 moves, or 40 ply, full width, it >is obvious that 20 move combinations of the sort you refer to in fact are more >positional than tactical, with entire branches ending with short dismissals like >"of course not 3.'such and such a move'?? because of the resulting kingside >weaknesses". But after such combos are more fully analyzed, it often turns out >that moves like 3.'such and such' are actually good upon further inspection >because the kingside weaknesses or whatever were not so serious after all. Flaws >based on positional assumptions seem to arise quite frequently, and to support >this I quote from the introduction to GM Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by >Move": >"As the power of computers grows, they become more and more adept at finding >holes in games formerly thought to be sound. My new 950 MHz machine is a monster >in this respect, and after it had torn many of my intended games to analytical >shreds I had to go back to my database to look for further examples, only to >have the process repeated." >Remember, he was looking only at GM-level games thought to be good. So I think >it is not impossible to imagine that GMs err tactically quite as often as >programs err positionally, and that these respective weakness may cancel out. >Just imagine if computers had somehow preceded humans to the chessboard, and >demanded perfection according to their standards from the newcomers. Fritz might >opine "True, these biological units have some interesting ideas, but just look >how the best of them can blunder pieces, forget openings, overlook mates, >misplay tablebase positions...how can they ever hope to be our equals?" > >Regards, >Vine Smith A very well-reasoned set of points you make. I have no doubt that strong programs can find tactical errors in most GM-GM games ever played (other than the short "GM draws"). And GMs would probably find positional errors in most computer games too. The only point you make that one might reasonably disagree with is the "cancel out" statement. My thinking on that: In the past 2 years or so, the tactical prowess of PC chess programs has taken the GM world by storm. Many GMs have fallen victim. If you look only at the results of the past 2 years or so, you might conclude that GMs are doomed. But it is VERY early in this game! IMHO, each individual GM can spend 50 hours or 200 hours (or whatever) and become a LOT better at adapting his style to avoid the brunt of the computers' major advantage (plus the GMs can share info in this regard), whereas it will likely take each major chess programmer many hundreds of hours (at best) to make a significant change in the way his program handles humans' major advantage. "Cancel out" implies equality of results. In the last year or two, the GM-PC results actually favored the computers (or so I hear). This year they might be closer to equal. In five years a LOT more techniques will be known by a LOT more GMs than today, plus more young GMs will have spent a larger portion of their careers co-existing with strong computers. It seems likely that at least SOME of these smart and flexible people will put learn and put to increasingly good use ever-improving anti-computer techniques. The vast majority of chess players are _already_ way out of their leagues against computers, and _that_ will not change. But IMO the best of the best humans have a LOT of room to improve in their anti-computer techniques and results -- and with any significant motivation they will do so. Thus I think it's way too early to state that NOT ONE human will consistently achieve positive results against the top PC programs EVER in the future. (Of course, I personally will definitely continue to be slaughtered mercilessly by computers!)
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.