Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:59:17 06/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2005 at 00:57:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >On June 15, 2005 at 00:05:51, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>On June 14, 2005 at 22:35:26, William Sorin wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2005 at 22:19:29, Mark Ryan wrote: >>> >>>>Has this been the wrong metaphor all along? >>>> >>>>Years ago, Kasparov predicted that the future of chess was in "Advanced Chess" >>>>(people playing chess with computer assistance). Now the Freestyle Tournament >>>>seems to be confirming this prediction. In the words of Chessbase, " ... we can >>>>draw first tentative conclusions. One is that the most powerful chess playing >>>>entity on the planet is a GM armed with a computer." >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2453 >>>> >>>>We are the tool-manufacturing species. We create the tools, and we shape their >>>>purpose. In Vancouver, the trains in the SkyTrain system have no drivers, but >>>>there is a central control room where human beings monitor everything carefully >>>>and react to unforeseen emergencies. The level of human involvement has been >>>>reduced, but it is still there; in fact, it has been isolated to a higher level. >>>> >>>>No matter how strong the chess machines become, will they always be stronger >>>>with a GM at the controls? >>>> >>>>Mark >>> >>> >>> >>>I wonder then if a 2600 Grandmaster using Fritz could beat any of the Top Ten >>>human Grandmasters without computer assistance? >> >> >>I would expect a 2600 GM with chessbase and Fritz to crush any human player >>without. Even at the very top many games are decided by tactical mistakes. Also, >> the ability to research an opening at the board would be very useful. >>Regards >>Tony > >I believe Kasparov could defeat a 2600 rated player, even with the assistance of >a top program and top PC computer, as long as he knows what he's dealing with. Kasparov has little chance against such a android player in a serious long match. There is so many players who are analytical strong, if they are allowed to use a computer to refute or improve their failing idea. Please note there will be many draws and even a few wins of Kasparov. Don't forget that the number of errors made by strong human players is pretty low. Kasparov just makes at most 1 bad move a game or so. No more. But there is a difference between strategic real good moves and superb moves. You can play a type of accurate tactical chess where mankind is real poor in and where computer is real good when having an operator correct its strategic mistakes. Basically computer is better in all respects than mankind, except strategics. Now the luck for the top players is of course that strategics is overwhelming important in opening and most complex endgames. Yet there is many titled players who are great strategically. I even know 1200 rated players who play corr chess who are strategically real real good. They just make errors in all other respects (positional, especially tactical and in endgame). The only terrain where Kasparov makes a chance of beating a human using computer is when playing a crushing opening, or when having a deep strategic endgame where his endgame knowledge is better than that of the human behind the computer. These 2 scenario's are possible, but they won't happen much. Kasparov doesn't play a brilliant novelty in every game. Also kasparov's endgame technique is in no respect better than mine at slow time controls (when computer assisted) and i'm just a FM, this where other world top GMs are strategically in far endgame really so so so superior. Peter Svidler is an example of a GM who is just superior strategically in endgame to probably all other players (and computerhelp really doesn't help you in endgame against svidler, we already tried that). The real problem for most to realize here is that there is many FM's, yes even 2100 players, who would be better than Kasparov if they would miss no tactics. For example i remember several players (usually also players who played corresopndence chess), who just invented great novelties live at the board and GM's couldn't refute it. Usually around move 30 or so they blunder and lose and that's why those players have 2100 or 2200 or 2300. There is a big discussion at the internet now in some dutch chess forums and it is about that the new generation of 15 year old - 22 year old IM's and GM's are only tactical good and positional and strategical just so so inferior to the FM's and IM's and GM's from previous generation. This is just so true. I'm analyzing lately regurarly with GM's and really, there is (ex-)russian GM's who are just so superior strategically/positional to the new generation, but they lose from them. They reach some position +3.5 or so somewhere and then they still draw or lose it. Tactics is so overwhelming important the first 2200 rating points, it is the basis of everything. If you make a tactical mistake, dang you lose. The world top is who they are because in the first place they can play tactical without a single error in the entire game and that for many games. Kasparov and perhaps even more Polgar are the tactical strongest players on paper in world top from the previous generation of chessplayers. We will see the new generation is far better there. >I'd like to see such a match, but unfortunately he's retired:( > >In a sense he was dealing with mutiple GM's when he played Deep Blue, and his >loss was in the six game match was a fluke, one we'll never see proven >otherwise:( > >Too Bad, > Terry
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.