Author: Jeff Lischer
Date: 06:26:42 01/31/03
Continuing a thread from yesterday...
On January 30, 2003 at 07:06:40, Mike Hood wrote:
>On January 30, 2003 at 02:49:07, Jouni Uski wrote:
>
>>http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=160
>>
>>The top humans are significantly stronger than the top programs at classical
>>time controls. Hmm?!?! Bareev?
>>
>>Of course You must be careful when reading Chessbase report, bit this is OK.
>>
>>Jouni
>
>Jouni, although Chessbase can often be accused of a lot of spin, which is
>understandable, I can accept the statement made by Mig as an honest evaluation.
>To quote a statement later in the article, which qualifies your quote:
>
>"We surmise that today's top programs play consistently at a 2500-2600 level of
>chess quality. The difference is that they instantly and mercilessly punish
>every human mistake and almost never let a winning position slip. This
>near-elimination of the margin for error pushes their practical performance up
>toward the 2800 level."
When I first read Mig's statement, I agreed with it as well. However, now I'm
not so sure. I have these visions in my head...
Humans talking about the way computers play chess:
Positionally, they consistently play at a 2500-2600 level, but tactically
they play at more like 3000! In practice, this combination pushes them up
towards 2800.
Computers talking about the way humans play chess:
Tactically, they consistently play at a 2500-2600 level, but positionally
they play at more like 3000! In practice, this combination pushes them up
towards 2800.
What's the big difference what combination of skills makes up the ultimate
playing strength? Isn't strength strength?
On re-reading Mig's article, I have to say it is very fair overall. I think
there's an asymmetrical balance now in human/computer chess that makes these
matches great events to watch!
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.