Author: blass uri
Date: 12:28:46 05/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 1999 at 13:18:49, Paul Richards wrote: >On May 25, 1999 at 09:59:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It is simply time to realize that the GM players know so much more than the >>programs, that the only way the programs are getting by is through tactical >>skill. And at 40/2 the tactical skill of the program is not obviously better >>than the tactical skill of the GM. At game/30 it is, of course. But at 40/2 >>I don't believe so. > >I would still distinguish between tactical skill and strategic >understanding. Strategic understanding lets you create favorable >situations that are likely to offer tactical possibilities. This is >the way humans approach the game, and it allows them to create >situations where the payoff is too distant for the computer to see. >However I would not say that human tactical skill is equivalent to >the computer's, regardless of the time control. Even Kasparov uses >programs like Fritz to investigate positions, precisely because >computers are superior at tactics. GMs think in terms of plans, and >then calculate variations for their plan, and for what they believe >their opponent's plan is. They are just as incapable as the rest of >us chess players of analyzing all possible moves, and as a result >they will overlook things. GM Rohde had a strategically won position >but did not play optimally winning moves to finish the game either. >If he could calculate as precisely as Rebel he would have. Again, >GM calculation is devoted to carrying out specific plans, and this >strategic understanding allows them to efficiently use a tactical ability >that is very limited compared to the machine's. But since winning tactics >invariably spring from good strategic positions (centuries of human >experience have distilled the elements of what constitutes a good >position), barring a tactical blunder the human has the edge. The >computer is not outcalculated in any capacity, but does not have the >knowledge base built on centuries of practice that guides GM play, and as >a result is strategically squeezed into a position where winning tactics >are unlikely to exist in the first place. This highlights the difficulty >of finding algorithms that accurately describe strategic play. A program >that can do this well will win on ordinary hardware. Given the difficulty >of programming such knowledge though, brute tactical strength will make up >for the deficit. In any case when it comes to pure tactics the humans have >long since lost that battle. I do not agree about it. Computers do tactical mistakes if the tactics is too deep for them. Rebel could not find that f4 is losing because of tactical reason(Re8) but I believe that some humans can find that Re8 is winning(GM Rohde could not find it in tournament time control but he is not the best player). There are more example of tactical blunders of computers. Deeper blue could not see a simple draw against kasparov only because of the fact that the line with Qe3 is too long for it. I am sure that every good correspondence player can find the draw even without the help of computer but computers cannot see the draw even if you give them a lot of time(they may find Qe3 but only because they do not like the alternative and the problem was before the move Qe3 to see that it is a draw). I believe that kasparov also could find the draw in tournament time control against a human but he believed in your thoery that deeper blue cannot do tactical mistakes so he even did not check it. 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.