Author: Derek Paquette
Date: 17:15:56 10/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2004 at 19:35:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 05, 2004 at 19:17:06, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>On October 05, 2004 at 17:12:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 2004 at 14:14:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On October 05, 2004 at 11:40:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 05, 2004 at 03:25:32, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Where is all the discussion?? >>>>>> >>>>>>There are different dates for games, but start date seems to be 8.10. And after >>>>>>4 days we know the truth about computers playing level. >>>>>> >>>>>>Jouni >>>>> >>>>>How will we know the "truth" after these games, when we apparently don't know >>>>>the "truth" after all the previous human/computer games??? >>>> >>>> >>>>What truth are we referring about? My only conclusion is that computers tactics >>>>are so strong nowadays that any strategic advantage that the human GM might have >>>>over them simply balanced out. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jorge >>> >>>I have no idea about what "truth" he was talking about. >>> >>>But the computers are _not_ overwhelming the humans in tactics by any stretch... >> >>YOu can look at that two ways, >>1. computers aren't creating or isolating tactical situations and exploiting >>them >>2. computers will play tactics near perfectly every time, where a human would >>not. So you could almost say they are blowing humans off the board with >>tactics. > >I wouldn't say any such thing. Give a computer Shirov's Bh3 sacrifice and see >how long the "tactical monsters" take to see that, and it is _all_ tactics. The >main advantage of computers is steady play. Humans occasionally make _big_ >mistakes. Computers simply do not. Apparently that is enough to produce pretty >good results... pretty good is an understatment in my opinion. How many times have we seen computers finish first in a tournament? And these same computers runing these programs (noteably shredder 8) can be bought off the shelf. So by saying 'good' is a understatment. Infact the book used in Argentina was the same book from the box. CT15 in Argentina finished first, people didnt know its style as much and got blown away. This upcoming small tournament will be a good test to see just how well 'steady' play assists in elo points vs humans. Yes there are certain moves that computers can't find, but there are a lot of moves overlooked in tournaments by humans because there are simply too many things to consider in a 3 minute per move time frame, so they aren't blunders persay, they are just the runoffs of the advantages of a computer over a human. So i agree with you that steady play is one of the reasons, but I disagree with your 'pretty good' results. -Derek Paquette
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.