Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:05:09 08/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 1999 at 02:29:51, blass uri wrote: > >On August 09, 1999 at 17:10:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>I have yet to find a single game at 40/2 with no tactical errors. Even by >>Kasparov. They might not be 'losing' tactical errors, but they are errors all >>the same... >> >>That is usually the give-away, because someone using a computer might make a >>weak move here and there, but they _never_ hang pawns or overlook winning them >>when it is reasonable to do so... just like a computer, and much unlike a >>human, even a super-GM. > >1)What do you mean by tactical error? >If you mean that the biggest change in the evaluation is not more than 0.5 pawn >then I drew in the past a game at tournament tiem control of more than 40 moves >with no tactical errors >(I analyzed it with a computer and the biggest change in the evaluation was not >more than 0.5 pawn) > >The opponent's rating was close to 1800 and my rating was 1985. > >2)It is also possible that a move that the computer evaluate as a tactical error >is a good move and a human who use a computer can play it (analyzing the >position with a computer can help the human to be sure that the move is not a >tactical blunder). > >Uri I define tactical error as follows: any move that changes the material balance by a pawn or more, whether or not the move is really good or bad. IE if a computer thinks that grabbing a pawn is the right thing, and the human doesn't, I call that a tactical error. Note that this is from a computer perspective, because I have seen several positions where I would _not_ grab the pawn, but any program I try would. But please post the game if you'd like to have me check it by my 'definition' to see what happened... Note that my definition would _not_ be used to assign a ? to a move, in every case, because often the computer is too materialistic and grabs pawns when it really should not. My definition simply means that someone's game agrees with a 'materialistic' computer or not. And if it _does_ agree 100% of the time, it is very likely that the player is a computer or using a computer. If this is repeated over several games in succession, the probability goes _way_ up...
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.