Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 12:44:11 10/03/99
Once again, due to Rebel result against a GM, some discussion has arisen respect real strength of top programs. Are they equal or near equal GM players? They are not, by far? What? Arguments against Top programs having reached GM level tends to remark that too few games at tournament rithm has been played to do possible to count wins or draws of top programs against human opposition, but then the same is truth for the opposite: too few games has been played to take into account lost games as a decisive proof of non-GM level in top programs. Impressions? There are many. What Thorsten say, that he is capable of measuring the level of a program just looking at it playing a game or even looking some moves made by it in the game, could sound too extreme for many people here, but that is exactly what we do if we qualify a program without enough results to tell. Beside, there are some conceptual problems: what is GM level? That of Kasparov, Karpov and a dozen guys on the top twelve rank? Or that of “weak”, normal, GM? GM is a too wide category for the facts that enclose. 50 points of difference in this range is far more significative than in the expert or just Fide master level. There are worlds of difference in strategical and technical understanding between Kasparov or Karpov and any GM player 50 points less strong, but in expert or master level there are only some degrees of better handling of conventional tactics and technics. And then we have the very old discussion about tactics and strategic capacities and the rol they perform. “Programs does not know nothing of this compared with real GM, they just are good tacticians, even relentless and unsurpassable in that area”, but then, how much strategic or tactical is chess in itself? Even in GM playing, how many games are won and lost because tiny strategic advantages? I bet than many, many GM games are won and lost for the same kind of tactical reasons we, amateurs, win or lose, but only with more intricate patterns in more hidden, sophisticated variation lines. But then, forgetting that, each time we see a game won by a computer against a very strong human player on the ground of tactic blows, we tend to devaluate it because “was not won” with a flashy show of strategies or technics. And if the contrary happens, it is said, then, that “even” in tactics GM are superior to machines. So, we have many sides to support our biases, but the only one thing we lack to finish the argument is just enough games, many classes of games. Until then we cannot say too much except to talk loud about our tastes and impressions. My impression? Top programs are in the area of IM masters, maybe also biting the line of very weak GM. And that is enough to give them the chance to win to a strong GM from time to time. But it seems they lack the ultimate degree of subtility and understanding a big GM have. Of course this is only an impression Fernando
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.