Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The truth about chess programs

Author: George Tsavdaris

Date: 03:16:12 04/22/05

Go up one level in this thread


On April 22, 2005 at 05:45:46, Richard Pijl wrote:

>>>
>>>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).
>>
>> Yes but deep tactics, need precise play and humans doesn't have this, so this
>>is not an advantage for humans......
>>
>
>Deep 'tactics' usually have a positional ring to it, as they won't be possible
>without certain characteristics in the position, e.g. locked centre, superior
>attacking forces on the king's position etc. Humans can recognize these
>characteristics and selectively calculate these tactics, where a computer may
>not even consider them as sacrifices may be required to start them.
>
>My experience is that when the key move of a deep 'tactic' is played (the sac),
>the computer will find the next moves pretty easily, probably with negative eval
>at first, but climbing on every ply it searches. This is why openingbook-sac's
>are that dangerous. Defending requires usually more precise play than attacking
>...
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>> The reason, for me, that computers can play at an equal level with top GM's is
>>the amazing (short) tactical ability they have, the amazing defensive ability
>>they have, but the most important is that they never make any blunders or even
>>just mistakes that would cost the game and this means also that if they have a
>>winning position they will win..........!
>
>This is just not true. Another area where the GM is superior, is in the endgame.
>I've seen many endgames played by computers that makes no sense at all. Humans
>can really easily beat computers here. As long as they stay out of the
>tablebases :-)
>
 Yeah, i didn't mean endgames with a small advantage for the computer. This is
not easy even today for computers to handle........



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.