Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 07:06:06 01/26/06
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Rolf, well, first you must declare what chess strength IS. IMO this isn't clear. Of course we have something, most call it strength, measured in Elo by sucess in games. You know, if they could, many engines would laugh about humans. Think about Rybka & Fritz talking with each other: "Hey Fritz, have you seen this stupid human ? He didn't do that bad, but then he missed a mate in 10 and did even lose... They are sooooo weak in easy positions, unbelieveable that they even have a chance from time to time" - Fritz Answering: "And that Karjakin against Topalov, he even had a better position but then overseeing some simple tactical shoots, how could this happen, I wonder ?" Therefor it is very unclear what "strength" is, looking stupid in some positions does not mean at all that someone/thing is weak. It might look from our point of view weak when engines do not understand some for us trivial stuff, but there are enough things that make humans look weak compared to computers. As long computers play the game of chess in such a different way then humans do, this will last forever. Greets, Thomas P.S.: How do we measure human strength ? Is there a different method then games and game performance ? Which is widely used ?
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.