Terry McCracken wrote:When a computer can pose, on it's own, a top Endgame Study then I'll concur.
This would not be difficult.
A maestro like Don, or even a beginner like me, could write a program X to generate 1000 credible WTM endgame positions for 10 minutes each, which are then analysed by a Komodo 4 MP on a 2xX5680, storing evaluations in a file. The program X then searches that file for the characteristic of a position showing an evaluation of less than +0.5 (example, +0.4, 0.0, -2.5) for a long time (at least 2 minutes?) and then the evaluation becoming more than +2. Most of these will be brilliancies.
Terry McCracken wrote:Are you serious? Kasparov use to play these simple positions in his sleep, so did many of the elite past and present.
How many super grandmasters post here? None?
To advance the discussion beyond a shouting contest, let's discuss the "Tarrasch" point of view that Re3 is superior to Re7+, a view that is not shared by Houdini.
Can you explain the following:
1) How does white win after 1.Re3 if black replies Kd6 and Rd5.
2) How does black have "good drawing chances" after 1.Re7+ Kd6 2.Rxg7 Rxd3 3.h4 Rd1+ 4.Kh2 Rd2 5.Rxh7 Rxb2 6.h5 - Houdini thinks that the final position is a straightforward win for white.
Robert
I think players tend to "over-romanticize" top players. When I was a kid I read books that made it seem like these guys were practically god's.
We have the ELO system which does a fair job of quantifying the skills of the top players and hopefully that demystifies them somewhat. But whether people like it or not, computers have passed them (and it's been a few years already) and the gap will only get wider.
Don
Computers have passed humans only in tactics. Planning and , generally speaking, strategy are on humans' side.
Often computers fail endgames in which you need a right plan more than a long calculation.
Terry McCracken wrote:When a computer can pose, on it's own, a top Endgame Study then I'll concur.
This would not be difficult.
A maestro like Don, or even a beginner like me, could write a program X to generate 1000 credible WTM endgame positions for 10 minutes each, which are then analysed by a Komodo 4 MP on a 2xX5680, storing evaluations in a file. The program X then searches that file for the characteristic of a position showing an evaluation of less than +0.5 (example, +0.4, 0.0, -2.5) for a long time (at least 2 minutes?) and then the evaluation becoming more than +2. Most of these will be brilliancies.
I'd like to see that. I'm talking about both depth and creativity. So far I've seen nothing like that generated by a machine.
Don wrote:I think players tend to "over-romanticize" top players. When I was a kid I read books that made it seem like these guys were practically god's.
If a Steinitz or Lasker were to play a top-five engine on a cluster in a say 100 game match, would the score for the first half of the match be different from the score for the second half?
Don wrote:I think players tend to "over-romanticize" top players. When I was a kid I read books that made it seem like these guys were practically god's.
If a Steinitz or Lasker were to play a top-five engine on a cluster in a say 100 game match, would the score for the first half of the match be different from the score for the second half?
This is an interesting point. I would say ''yes'', in the 2nd half human would score much better, especially Lasker.
Dragulic wrote:If a Steinitz or Lasker were to play a top-five engine on a cluster in a say 100 game match, would the score for the first half of the match be different from the score for the second half?
This is an interesting point. I would say ''yes'', in the 2nd half human would score much better, especially Lasker.
You mean, in the first half, the score is +50 =0 -0; in the second, it is +40 =10 -0?
Dragulic wrote:If a Steinitz or Lasker were to play a top-five engine on a cluster in a say 100 game match, would the score for the first half of the match be different from the score for the second half?
This is an interesting point. I would say ''yes'', in the 2nd half human would score much better, especially Lasker.
You mean, in the first half, the score is +50 =0 -0; in the second, it is +40 =10 -0?
Ah, your point now is clear:
well, honestly i think that a human chess genius can avoid all tactical complications, at least with white pieces; and without tactical complications i don't see humans losing against machines, although i know that 95% or so of computer chess enthusiasts think differently
MM wrote:i think that a human chess genius can avoid all tactical complications
This can be possible only in the J'adoubovic tradition. With hindsight of 20/20, tactics can be avoided. But in RW, Houbka will produce some troubles. To beat it/them, not just draw, it is necessary for the human player to also play masterful tactics. Without j'adoube.
Last edited by Dragulic on Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MM wrote:i think that a human chess genius can avoid all tactical complications
This can be possibly only in the J'adoubovic tradition. With hindsight of 20/20, tactics can be avoided. But in RW, Houbka will produce some troubles. To beat it/them, not just draw, it is necessary for the human player to also play masterful tactics. Without j'adoube.
No need of ''j'adoube'' or ''take back'' and no need of particular tactical abilities. Just need a good plan and precision (and possibly long time control, blitz or rapid don't help humans).
But i see that lately chess engines have been improved a lot in positional play so i would be curious to see Nakamura playing 150/40 against a machine....i bet my 2 cents on Hikaru...
