Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 02:32:09 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 05:03:00, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >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 Hi, Odd I agree completely. Another way to look at it is that a computers main advantage over humans is its power supply! I joke at the chess club that I have never seen a position that I could not lose in 1 move. Regards Tony
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.