Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 08:49:38 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 09:26:42, Jeff Lischer wrote: >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." > Here I have to agree that none of the top programs of today have as much chess knowledge as a human in the range of 2400 FIDE, but only if the human can play as consistent and error free as the top programs, then and only then can they reach 2700 rating. This remind me of Bobby Fischer, he once said that he suddenly decided to become good, or in another word he already have learned as much as he could ever learn, but he had to stop making blunders. Now when a human GM play like GM Smirin safely and waiting for the computer NOT to blunder, but to make a slight positional or strategical mistake then he doesn't have to be as strong as Kasparov to beat it. Pichard. Pichard. >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.