Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:31:05 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 19:26:22, George Tsavdaris wrote: >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." When there are only some hundreds of programs and there are many millions of chess players comparing top 10 humans with the top 10 computers give advantage to the humans. It is the same as comparing the top 10 humans of the world with the top 10 humans of part of tel-aviv and claiming that the evaoustion of the top 10 humans of the world are superior so humans of the world are superior relative to humans of tel-aviv. Uri
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.