Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:00:50 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 13:28:28, Chris Carson wrote: >On April 17, 2002 at 13:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 17, 2002 at 12:19:15, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On April 17, 2002 at 10:58:13, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On April 17, 2002 at 09:07:04, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 17, 2002 at 03:33:12, Uri Blass 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that computers are 2800+ in tactic even today and it is not something >>>>>>about the future. >>>>>> >>>>>>tactics is not only long combinations but mainly short combinations. >>>>>>No human can see every short combination that programs has no chance to miss. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I agree with you Uri. I would add that computers still have some problems with >>>>>chess knowledge, however they make up for it with tactics. I would also add >>>>>that Planning and Preparation are the keys (or just plain luck) to beating the >>>>>comps. Do you have any additional ideas on beating the comps? >>>>> >>>>>I also agree with your evaluation on opening preparation. I see no ethical >>>>>reason why a program must use a known book. GM's get to use any >>>>>book/preparation they choose, it is only fair that the comps get to change their >>>>>books. (This discussion was in a different part of this thread). >>>> >>>> >>>>What's your rating Chris as you need to be 2800 to know whether or not >>>>Comps./Programmes have attained this level of sophistication. >>> >>>My rating is in my profile. It is nowhere near 2800. You have posted your >>>opinion on short vs long tactics in this and other threads, I wonder if you >>>follow the "need to be 2800 to know" rule for yourself? My opinion is just >>>that. If you do not like it, I can live with that. >>> >>>> >>>>Kasparov and Kramnik say todays' programmes on top PC's are not 2800+ in the >>>>tactical arena. >>> >>>Well, Kramnik recently said that Fritz 7 on 8-processors "definitely be over >>>2800 in its Elo performance". Last time I checked, that was ELO 2800+ and I >>>believe it to be higher in tactics than in positional play. >>>See: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=255 >>> >>>I doubt you can support your statement with a more recent Kramnik quote. >>> >> >>Just as surely as I believe that the statement by Kramnik is pure pre-match >>hyperbole, having nothing to do with facts at all. As Kasparov has stated >>although again, I would take _his_ statements with a grain of salt as well as >>everybody has an agenda in this circumstance... >> >>But forget the 2800+ stuff. It ain't gonna happen... > >I agree with you. GM Kramnik will win easily. I was responding to the person >above, not sure why you answered? I was responding to the 2800+ nonsense quote by Kramnik... Also it is pretty obvious that ChessBase can't be trusted either as they have a vested interest in as much hyperbole as they can possibly produce (similar to IBM and the DB97 match in fact). > >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>>They miss too much in long range tactics due to the "Horizon Effect". >>>> >>>>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.