Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 16:24:03 05/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 1999 at 09:59:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On May 25, 1999 at 06:43:37, Paulo Soares wrote:
>
>>On May 25, 1999 at 06:08:08, Harald Faber wrote:
>>
>>>On May 24, 1999 at 17:21:54, blass uri wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Hiarcs7 thinks and shows it has a clear win playing the other programs and
>>>>>>against self play. I did not say Hiarcs7 is correct and this is proven. I want
>>>>>>people to punch holes in the move if they can. If I did not, I would just say
>>>>>>"White has a overwhelming position and black is lost at move 20".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't call it 'pathetic'. IE why insult GM Rohde. He did win the game,
>>>>>and all your analysis has shown is that Hiarcs can beat other programs with Bg2,
>>>>>for example.
>>>>
>>>>The team of me and programs tried to win the computer with black after 26.Bg2
>>>>without success.
>>>
>>>Does your team contain at least one IM?
>>>
>>>>I know that other in this club also tried without success.
>>>
>>>Same question.
>>>
>>>>If nobody proves that it is possible then I believe that rebel missed a win by
>>>>23.Rxb4 and missed a draw by 26.Bg2
>>>>Uri
>>
>>Harald,
>>
>>You don't know how strong is a chess player(ELO=1800) aided for a
>>chess program, analysing a position for some hours. This is my
>>case.
>>
>>Paulo Soares, from Brazil
>
>First, I happen to agree with Harald.
>
>Second, to paraphrase you, while I might not know how strong an 1800 player
>+ a computer program is, I _definitely_ understand how strong a GM player is.
>I am fortunate enough to talk with more than one GM regularly via phone and on
>ICC. And they know so much more than all the programs combined that it is a
>frightning thought to consider. If you saw Rohde's comments at the top of the
>board today, you get some inkling of what he thought. And as he said on ICC
>after the game, he considered Ra5 a mistake, and he thought that if white had
>played Bg2 that black would still be winning, with perhaps some chance of a
>draw (RB vs Q).
>
>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.
Robert,
The point of the question is: which is the quality of the analyses of
a position, made for a human being, assisted for programs?
Considerations:
1. Which is the knowledge of the human being on chess (ELO is a good
measure)?
I think that this must be the main one.
2. Which is the experience that has that person in this type of analysis?
Also it is important, and I say on that due to my experience playing
postal chess, assisted for computer, for some years.
3. Which the time useed to make the analysis?
Better is much time, and I am speaking of hours.
4. Which type of position that is being analized?
It can be a closed position, what it makes it difficult
the analyses for who has a low ELO. If it will be a tactical
position, or it will be able to be changed into a tactical
position, exactly that the program does not find the best line, the
possibility of the human being to help the computer to find this line
increases very.
5. Which is the used hardware?
The more quick the hardware, more analyses and minor margin of error
6. Which is the program that is being used?
For me the program is very important. I have several, but I find that
best it's Fritz5.32, therefore shows the analysis of several moves to
the same time(infinite analyses), facilitating to many times which the
move to be chosen. The programs that also run in Fritz interface have that
easiness.
Paulo Soares has a presumption 1800 ELO, as he can make analyses as a
GM? In the same conditions of item 1 to 6, that goes to occur few
times. Certainly also GM goes to analyze very better, in the majority
of the positions, exactly without a program. However I find that the
capacity of analysis of a position is being underestimated for
the team human+machine, yet the human have a low rating.
Summarizing, I like to analyse positions, and I am relatively
satisfied with my analyses.
Paulo Soares
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.