Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:36:22 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 00:51:53, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On July 13, 2002 at 21:41:36, Omid David wrote:
>
>>On July 13, 2002 at 08:51:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On July 13, 2002 at 05:47:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 04:02:29, Jan Kiwitter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 00:20:02, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think he is around IM level, if I recall correctly. (2100 German rating)
>>>>>
>>>>>In this case your information is wrong. I myself have about 2150 German rating
>>>>>and I am far from playing at IM level.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Jan
>>>>
>>>>Some simple truths:
>>>>
>>>>° Human players with FIDE (not US or Britain or some national rankings) Elo
>>>>level of about 2000 or 2100 are incredibly strong amateurs. They all know more
>>>>about chess than any commercial or amateur program.
>>>
>>>I do not believe in it.
>>>
>>>I had fide rating of slightly more than 2000 and I lost it.
>>>I believe that I am at the level of 2000-2100 fide rating(unfortunately a
>>>tournament when I did good results against players with fide rating was not
>>>included in the fide rating).
>>>
>>>My israeli rating that is eqvivalent to fide rating is again more than
>>>2000(2021).
>>>
>>>I expect chess programs to beat me with no opening book
>>>after 1.a3 a6 or 1.h4 h5.
>>>
>>>There are positions when humans with 2000-2100 can play better than the machines
>>>but there are also a lot of positions when machines play better than 2000-2100
>>>humans.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>° The most important difference between such human amateurs and the progs is not
>>>>their chess but the huge opening books stuff. No amateur is able to know the
>>>>details of so many openings.
>>>
>>>The biggest difference is the speed of the machines.
>>>machines calculates too fast for humans.
>>>
>>>No amatuer is able to search even 1K nodes per second.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>° If such a human expert meets a computer program (with the books) he normally
>>>>has no chance - exception if he could prepare special anti-computerchess.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>° IM start around 2400! With 2150 you are lightyears away from IM. IM know all
>>>>about chess. Know openings until move 30 into the endgames.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do not believe in it.
>>>IM's do not know all about chess(otherwise they could avoid losing games).
>>>
>>>Even kasparov and kramnik do not know all about chess.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>I still consider computers as very dumb chess players. On many occasions I
>>manage to beat strong programs like Fritz or Junior merely by positional
>>knowledge. Considering that I'm not a very strong player (2250 ELO), it means
>>that computers severely lack chess knowledge. Don't forget that humans sometimes
>>even outsearch programs in some tactical lines, since humans can consider
>>extremely deep variations which no program can. Programs use 99% of their search
>>time on searching "unplausible" moves (as said in the 1970s!). I believe the top
>>50 players in FIDE rating least, can easily crush any computer in a match.
>
>Have you seen Chris Carson's database of computer verse GM games?
>
>I think you are far too optimistic ("easily crush" is too strong).
>
>Computers don't really plan, and often do not understand the openings they are
>playing. But in the middle game, they will see any microscopic tactic to
>wheedle away a pawn and nickel and dime you to death. And if you should make a
>tiny slip, the computer will never fail to see it.
>
>The Evergreen game? Computers refuse the sacrifice.
>
>Some of Morphy's most brilliant combinations? Even amateur programs see them
>with ease.
>
>Computers are tactically much better than nearly all humans, including most
>GM's. Positionally they are weaker. But tactics can also win a battle, as well
>as strategy.
Let me take part in the debate exactly here. I want to substantiate why I
believe in Ohmid's statement. Of course I would go even farther than place 50. I
think we must consider the importance of the difference between a potential and
reality. Here you both are right. Ohmid means basically the potential while you
mean the not so promissing reality of recent matches (shows). Here comes my
theory into life. Without a special training and preparation also GM won't win
at will. The reason is simply that computerchess is nor exactly chess. If you
play normal chess your task is much more difficult. Perhaps too difficult. Then
only a few very talented GM have a real chance. But Ohmid and myself mean that
by preparation you understand the details of computer play and then you can
exploit the weaknesses. _No_ matter if in tactics or strategies. But again. It's
like the difference between active and passive knowledge. You might be a good
speaker of German in school but then come to Berlin and try to communicate,
there you have the main point I tried to explain for years now.
Rolf Tueschen
>
>Perhaps this will dampen your enthusiasm for the certainty of such an outcome:
>
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.