Author: Len Eisner
Date: 14:51:58 11/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 1999 at 03:08:14, blass uri wrote: >On November 29, 1999 at 22:48:38, Len Eisner wrote: ><snipped> >>I think this is largely a myth. The current crop of programs are much better >>positionally and strategically that CCC people give them credit for. Otherwise, >>they could not beat strong masters at any time control. Combinations are only >>possible if you have a positional advantage. So these programs must be getting >>better positions against masters to make use of their tactical abilities. Keep >>in mind that I am not talking about GM's and IMs. I'm saying that today's >>programs hold their own in all aspects of the game against everyone below IM >>strength > >Masters and even candidate masters are superior in positional understanding and >computers can get good positions against humans because the search push them to >see good positions that they understand that they are good. > >They avoid positional blunders not because of good positional understanding but >because the search push them to see that the positional blunders are wrong >because the positional blunders lead to a bad position that even they understand >that it is bad(they have small positional understanding) or to material loss. > >Uri I grant your point that programs are not as *knowledable* as masters. But as an end user of these programs, I only care about the moves they play, not why they select them. From my perspective, today's programs *play* as well as USCF masters (not IMs or GMs.), even if they don't understand why. Strange but true! Len
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.