Author: Eberhard
Date: 18:41:54 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 20:31:05, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Maybe the best computers are Hydra and Shredder 9. They play good thanks to a nice amount of chess knowledge. Also given that the human brain is capable of about 10^15 neuron operations, current chess computers havn't reached it's power yet. http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question54.htm http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm
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.