Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:55:24 10/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2003 at 08:53:42, martin fierz wrote: > >>I could envision a chess player that is as strong at chess as Marion Tinsley >>was at checkers. If a player only loses a couple of games over a 20 year >>period, he's going to most likely have a 3000+ rating, again assuming that >>he matches Tinsley's overall performance and not drawing _every_ game. > >IMO chess players are better at chess than checkers players at checkers. i don't >want to say anything against tinsley, but checkers is *far* from the level of >professionalism that chess has achieved. you have hundreds or maybe even >thousands of intelligent people studying chess hard, many hours a day, for >years. how many like that do you have in checkers? not one. no non-professional >chess player is anywhere near the top. I don't disagree with that at all. My point was that Tinsley had an absolutely remarkable record over 40 years of playing. If someone were to suddenly show up with a "super-machine" that could beat Kasparov 3 of every 4 games, then they would end up over 3000 with no real problem, since Kasparov is over 2800. And then if someone else builds yet another super-machine that can whup the first super-machine 3 of every 4 games, they would crack 3200. And so on. >what made tinsley unique (besides his talent) is that he was really dedicated to >that game, and studied it like no other. but he still studied less than any >average chess professional does chess today. I don't know that I buy that. I knew him for many years and he studied a _lot_. And he also played chess, as I have reported in the past, but he was maybe a 2000 player there. > checkers players have no database >tools like chessbase. tinsley had no strong programs to analyze with. checkers >literature is virtually non-existent compared to the massive body of chess >literature. >another point about tinsley and his very rare losses is that he was a very >cautious player, who would rather win a match with 1 win and 19 draws than with >9 wins, 1 loss and 10 draws. checkers is very drawish. you cannot compare the >small number of his losses in checkers to chess. I wasn't trying to compare chess to checkers at all. Just explaining how a player could reach 3000+. > >cheers > martin
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.