Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:25:55 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 1999 at 04:05:19, blass uri wrote: >On October 03, 1999 at 22:30:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 03, 1999 at 12:14:56, Howard Exner wrote: >> >>>On October 03, 1999 at 04:42:40, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>>Posted by Lawrence S. Tamarkin on October 03, 1999 at 02:48:13: >>>>> >>>>>Congratulations to Rebel Century on its win against GM Scherbakov. We here at >>>>>the Marshall Chess Club Salute you! (I may just set up some match in the club, >>>>>involving an IM or GM, just for fun, but especially if Rebel company (Ed), >>>>>wants to draw a player from the NY chess mecca... >>>> >>>>You know I am always in for a challenge. And the Marshall Chess Club is >>>>quite a name to remember. >>> >>>Speaking of Marshall, the game reminded of Frank Marshall - famous for >>>subjecting his opponent to many arduous king marches. >>>I think we are too hard on chess programs - when they play a game like this >>>people say it was just routine play and that such and such also finds this or >>>that move. If this game were played by two humans it would be a candidate for a >>>the tournament highlight reel. >> >> >>That is actually a good point. IE today, I am not particularly impressed by >>tactical combinations any more (by a computer). I have seen too many deep >>combinations, mates in 100+ moves announced, deep tactics + tablebases that >>give unbelievable mate annoucements... etc... > >The question is if other programs can see the same combination. >In the case of the game of Rebel the answer is yes but there are cases when it >is not so simple. >> >>IE for a computer, I look for nice positional moves or moves that really put >>pressure on the opponent/position. For humans we are looking for the Shirov- >>type tactical shots. > >commercial programs cannot see his Bh3 tactical shot. >> >>Totally different, when you think about it... probably due to the fact that >>the computers are simply tactical wizards (even weak programs). So it becomes >>passe'... > >They are sometimes weak at tactics relative to humans. >Most programs cannot solve the nolot test at tournament time control. > >I also know that they often have problems to see perpetual check that is easy >for humans. > >Maybe this is the reason that the GM did not resign with RR vs QPPPP. >Maybe he hoped to find a perpetual check with the 2 rooks. > >I saw cases when computer programs missed a simple perpetual check by 2 rooks. > >Uri I would never argue with your statements above. They are definitely true... But the point remains that computers, in general, find tactics easily, while they also find poor positional moves too easily as well. Deep tactics are neat, but so commonplace that (to me) clever positional ploys are much more interesting to find...
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.