Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 08:03:57 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 10:13:33, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 17, 2002 at 03:04:52, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On April 17, 2002 at 01:31:51, Joe Little wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2002 at 18:28:36, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2002 at 17:19:13, martin fierz wrote: >>>>>a program which plays a game like shredder vs. >>>>>smirin is just not GM strength. it is 3000+ in tactics and 2000- in positional >>>>>play. >>>> >>>>I think that chess is made over 90% of tactics... so 2700+ is not an optimistic >>>>evaluation. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Otello >>> >>> >>> I agree, seems pretty obvious to me but who am I? >> >>Yes Chess is 90% tactics at least, maybe even 95%! But that would still only >>mean that programmes play around 2700 level in tactics only, not in positional >>play and planning, which is _fundamental_ and till a programme aquires this >>skill in won't be a _complete_ Grandmaster. >> >>Planning is many years away, positional play is advanced a long ways but still >>needs improvement. >> >>Computers will play 2800+ in tactics long before it can actually manage deep >>positional play, let alone planning. >> >>When _all_ weak areas are finally addressed, Computers will be stronger than a >>GM and will win almost all the time, but that is likely many years down the >>road. >> >>However they may be still beating GM's almost consistently when Computers are at >>2800+ at tactics. >> >>Only the best anti-computer play will succeed, against them, although there will >>still be a few players who will win without using anti-computer play, but not >>many. >> >>Terry > > >Terry, it seems that in many tactical situations today's top programs running on >fast PCs may be Elo 3000+. That's why it has become so critical for GMs to >adapt their play -- those who don't will lose more games than they win. But I >think GMs CAN still improve their anti-computer techniques by a very wide margin >(that's not to say that every GM will). > >The science of anti-computer techniques is still in its infancy, at least >compared to the traditional chess techniques that have been refined continuously >for centuries. I think they can be 3000+ in short range tactics, as opposed to long range tactics. This strength manifests itself especially in fast blitz. Terry
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.