Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:22:02 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 09:47:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 13, 2002 at 15:23:08, Rolf Tueschen 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. >> >>I hope you didn't read me as if I had said that amateurs could beat commercial >>progs at will. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>° 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. >> >>Why should he need to do that? This is only important in sharp tactical >>positions. > >This is important in almost every position and not only in sharp tactical >positions. > >Humans can find better positional moves by searching deeper even in quiet >positions. >Chess programs can also find better moves by searching deeper. All true but I must insist on that humans can see certain plans a tempo and the rest is just the confirmation by some calculations. Machines are unable to do this. You criticised Crafty's general forbiding any takes on g5/g4. Of course this is premature. But this is my point. Either you tell them or they must calculate. But certain position cannot be calculated to a good end. > >I believe that programs have no chance against GMs if you let them to >change their mind only when they see a move that is at least 0.3 pawns better. This surprises me. Thanks for the hint. I never read something about such numbers. Is .3 correct or just an example? Here the next point. I hope you believe me that GM if in real challenge would exactly exploit the machines in such ideosyncrasies. But without incentive it's with no interest so far. Rolf Tueschen > >Uri
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.