Author: Odd Gunnar Malin
Date: 02:03:00 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 03:39:06, Tony Nichols wrote: > I know I might make some people mad by what I say but someone should say it. >Today's chess programs are not nearly as strong as the top human players. All >this hype about Hydra being 3000 elo is a joke. In fact, All the elo claims for >computers are a joke. We have seen many examples of class players drawing >against these programs. These same players would have no chance of drawing even >an average GM(no disrespect). These high level man vs machine matches are just >promotional gimmicks. The top players won't play anti-computer chess for many >reasons: >1. ego. The players want to beat the computer with normal(manly) chess. They >also don't want their achievement to be devalued. >2. money. If you show the weaknesses of the program and systematically beat it >you certainly will not get invited to another match. >I find it strange that people who approach computer vs. computer tournaments in >a very scientific way are the same people who scoff at posts made by players who >regularly draw against the top programs. Perhaps this information upsets their >fantasy? I don't know. >I for one am an avid user of chess programs and I find them invaluable. However, >even I (1850 elo)have to guide the programs along the right paths during >analysis. Could you imagine me telling Kasparov that he's missing the point! No. >The programs perform as well as they do because they are very good at tactics >and most importantly they have huge opening books. I know this is a >controversial topic but if we really want to test the strenght of programs, then >have them play against strong humans without opening books. Many here would not >even consider it. >I am interested in what others have to say!? >Regards >Tony Hi. In positional (or overall) play human are far above computers. It's easy to check with first go through something like 'How good is your chess' by Danial King or the guess the move lecture in Chessmaster. Then let the computer do the same. I bet you as an 1800 player would score better than the comp, even I do it in several games and I'm 1500. This messure the overall play and don't punish you enough for your misses like in a normal game. Even in deep tactics a GM is better than a computer, the computers tactical superior is in the speed to find short tactics (3-7 moves). So why do a computer win? It plays tacticaly at maybe 2400 level, the difference from a human is that it play at this level all the moves. A human player (even a GM) don't play at his highest level the hole game. Just go throug a game with a computer and you will se many small misses, and of course also many moves that the comp initialy say is bad but when you walk through the variation it start agreeing with the played move. Maybe you could say that a GM varies his play between 1800 and 2900 while the computer play steady at 2400. To conclude: A game of chess is a competition where the result is depended on several factors, tactics, positional understanding, full consentration through the hole game. And when you should judge a computers strengt messuered in either Elo or title (GM/IM strength) you have to look only at the result of the competition, this is what Elo and GM/IM norms are about. Just my thought. Odd Gunnar
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.