Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:42:33 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 16:00:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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). Hyperbole sells, let the buyer beware. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>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.