Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 20:41:23 11/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 1999 at 22:32:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 29, 1999 at 22:21:58, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >[snip] >>The only true test is to pit many top programs many times against many top >>humans, under reasonably controlled conditions. > >I think this is an especially important comment. That is because not only do >the programs play differently, but also the humans. In a match not too long >ago, Judit Polgar faced a computer. Many people thought Polgar would clean-up, >since she is so strong tactically. I think that is exactly why she did not do >as well as expected. Her area of strength is exactly the same as the computers, Good point although I believe she has a solid mixture of the other types of strength--strategical and positional; she's too strong a GM to lack strong GM skills in those arenas also. I believe Polgar relied too much in the computer match on the her tactical strength--in fact I think she pushed tactics to excess in both the computer and Shirov matches. In both cases, she would have fared better (my opinion) to simply 'play' a more solid game and not try to blow her opponent out of the water using landmines full of tactical powder. Her propensities (style or taste) for attacking play led her into deep water. She took unnecessary risks in both matches (although how can I criticize GM play) which may be fun for her but gave her opponents major chances to cause her plans to backfire. I believe she is a much better and more rounded player than those two matches evidenced, but her choice of moves led to her downfall--she lived by the sword and died by the sword in both cases. I felt she lacked playing maturity in those games, since she didn't try to take her opponents out of their strengths but tried to brazenly beat them at their own games (apparently she felt she was better than them at tactics). Solid tactics come from good positions. Many top grandmasters (not all--witness Tal, Shirov and many others at times) absolutely shun unclear positions in which their chances are no more in general than their opponent, instead settling for minimal but clear advantages when ahead, trying to improve their positions step by step, and only seeking unclear positions intentionally when losing and trying to mix it up for counterplay. I like viewing some tactical games live on ICC, two strong GMs going toe to toe, since there is tremendous excitement--for a while. However I don't like to see all games become wild melees, without finesse (though I admit there is such a thing as tactical finesse!), where a single unforeseen blow from the other side can end it decisively. Although there is certainly beauty in deep or complex tactics, there is also a rich luster to purposeful positional and strategic play that creatively seeks to seize or increase advantage until tactics close out the game decisively for the player with advantage. A mistake during positional or strategic play may not always be fatal, but a single mistake during wild (unclear) tactics can lead to sudden loss after which the spectator feels cheated. Sort of like heavyweight boxing where two sluggers go at it and one is knocked out in the first round. Very exciting to a point, but rather hollow when you are looking forward to a lasting bout with many methods being tried out in the ring in a coordinated fashion, jousting back and forth with different techniques and creative ideas, testing the will and resolve and resourcefulness of each opponent, over and over. I am not against tactics versus tactics, indeed that is exciting to me, but with players that can vary their favorite style to adapt to changing conditions on the board or in a match, the spectator is often treated with many beautiful kinds of ideas and moves--sometimes strategic, sometimes positional, sometimes tactical, where both opponents strive to wrest advantage in one aspect or another, each balancing their changing options in evolving positions, trying to maintain their footing. As has been said, the beauty of a chess move is not how it looks on the board but in the idea behind it. The same applies to both strategical plans and positional ideas as well as tactical maneuvers. I like to see all these things in a match between worthy adversaries. I like to see the contestants exhibit superskills in each of these areas, drawing on a full bag of tricks, always trying to upstage their wily opponent who is willing to adopt a chameleon-like approach to win a game, depending on what presents itself as the most opportune way to seek a win. A headfirst brawl (I can knock you out before you knock me out) pales by comparison. Perhaps not in a single game, but in an extended match it can become a bit boring. --Steve Boak >and computers are better at tactics than most GM's even (I think) except in rare >cases like Zugzwang which a GM will see but some programs will not. > >On the other hand, a great strategic thinker will probably pose problems for a >computer. Similarly someone who is a master of closed positions. Also someone >who is effective at deep sacrifices (such that the 10 ply or so the computer >will see is not far enough to see the benefit). So a single GM against a single >computer program is not as telling as a mixture. I agree. And there is not as much pleasure in watching or playing over the games of just two opponents. Perhaps we enjoy the contrast of human versus computer styles so much that we seek the enjoyment of any top competition mixing the two. We don't want to know just how strong is Rebel 10, but we want to know the same thing about Fritz 6, Shredder 4, Nimzo 2000, Deep Junior, etc. Against Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Morozevich, Shirov and Polgar, et al. We want to see the entire range of beauty unfold in titanic battles among the great.
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.