Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 13:45:48 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." > >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! I don't think strength is strength...strength is just an overall appraisal made over many games. In general, computers are tactically superior, humans are positionally superior, and occasionally, a situation arises in which one side is able to humiliate the other with its skill set. That's what happened in Game 1. But eventually the human makes a mistake and ends up busted and embarassed. Roger
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.