Author: Brian Katz
Date: 21:58:35 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 22:41:36, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 21:39:21, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On October 27, 2002 at 21:29:06, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2002 at 21:18:51, Mike Byrne wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>Bottom line - Computers have raised the bar in terms of expectations from GM >>>>players - in general, I think top GMs of today are better than top GMs of >>>>yesteryear -- as today's top athlete's are better than yesteryear. <snip> >>> >>> >>>The following is somewhat "far out," but: >>> >>> >>>Today's top athlete's are better than yesteryear??? >> >>It sounds like you're the one "far out" -- have you been to Mars lately? >> >>The top atheletes of today are bigger, stronger faster and better - than >>yesteryear. Why should that surprise you? If nothing else, there are more >>people on this planet than 50 years ago -- if you been here on earth you might >>have noticed - that alone could account for the difference. >> >>End of discussion - it's not related to computer chess at this point and I'm not >>taking it to the CTF. >> >><balance of nonsense snipped> > >Hmmm. Sounds like I hit a sore spot. > >Well, I still feel that the current crop of GMs have no more latent talent than >the GMs of yesteryear. It is true that there are more people in the world >today. Maybe that makes Kasparov at his peak stronger than Fischer was at his >peak? > >Truly we are merely expressing our feelings. I feel that modern GMs are not >superior [i.e. bigger, stronger faster and better], although they have more >games and game analyses to look at in their databases. And, yes, the >availability of CB8 does provide better access. But I wouldn't go so far as to >suggest that the modern chess engines make the modern GMs even one point >stronger! > >Neither of us can substantiate or prove the correctness of our feelings. That's >OK by me. It's also OK by me if your feelings are different from mine. > >Bob D. There are a number of ways computers have changed modern day chess. For one, endgame tablebases have revolutionizes certain endings, whether certain endings are now found to be draws rather than wins, or vice versa. Imagine adjourned games of the past. World Championship matches or Candidates Tournaments. Some would have a whole team of seconds working with them to figure out a Rook endgame for example. Now, with endgame tablebases for a 5 piece ending, it would be analysed perfectly. Of course all have access to these programs, so I guess that keeps things even. I guess the best will excel in either case. Or take the Movie the LUZHIN Defense. If any of you have seen the movie and have noticed the position, although fabricated and the movie being fantacy, my point is that the forced mate that Alexander Luzhin realized after adjournment would now be immediately known by all who have a computer programs. For those who have not seen this position, here it is. It is a beautiful composition. I believe it was from GM Michael Stean who also worked with them on the movie. If you see it on DVD, you can really enjoy the positions and the pieces (House of Staunton Players Series)with the pause feature as opposed to VHS. I recommend it highly. In any event adjourned games are no longer the same because of the computer. Of course very few touraments have adjournments anymore. New game - Luzhin,Alexander Luzhin's Defense (The Motion Picture) ITALY, 24.05.2002 1...Re3+ 2.Kg4 f5+ 3.Kg5 Kg7 4.Nd5 Rh3 5.gxh3 h6+ 6.Kh4 Bf2# 0-1 [D]5k2/4rp1p/p5p1/2b5/P4P2/1PN2K2/4B1PP/2R5 b then here is the position where the Beautiful Rook Sacrifice comes in. [D]8/6kp/p5p1/2bN1pK1/P4P2/1P2r3/4B1PP/2R5 b Brian Katz
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.