Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 16:26:22 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 19:17:49, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>http://www.chessville.com/misc/PsychologyofChessSkill.htm >>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2466 >> >> >>I read: >>"In fact, chess players do not really “visualize” future positions in the sense >>of a detailed mental image, such having a picture of the board in one's head, >>but they are able to calculate long series of moves." >> >>I do not believe it. >>How is it possible to play blindfold without having a picture of the board in >>your head? I agree of course. I believe that our brain visualizes in any way the Chess board. The word calculation in the "calculation of a series of moves" statement, means exactly this! To examine the moves in the board........ >> >>How is it possible to see that the queen is under threat by a bishop without >>seeing fast the squares that the bishop control. >> >>In games with board there is no problem because I can see that the bishop threat >>the queen in one second but without a board I do not see the squares in the same >>diagnol as the bishop(I may calculate them but without a picture it will take me >>many seconds to see that the bishop threats the queen even if I remember the >>squares of the bishop and the queen). >> > >I can add that I disagree with the claim that world champions still play better >than chess softwares > >I see no proof for that and the last result suggests that world champions do not >play better. > >I do not buy the claim that humans have better evaluation of pawn structure. >It may be even the opposite because computers never forget that some pawn is >isolated pawn in their evaluation of some position in the tree when it never can >happen to a computer. > >I do not think that you can use the knowledge of the world champions to say what >is the knowledge of humans relative to computers. > >There are a lot more humans than chess programs so it is not fair to compare the >best humans with the best computers. > >It is more fair to compare humans that are better than 99.9% of the humans with >computers that are better than 99.9% of the computers. > Using percentages instead of absolute numbers, results in comparing again a larger number of humans against a smaller of computers as humans are more. To have a fair comparison you should say: "It is more fair to compare the top-10 humans with the top-10 computers."
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.