Don wrote: pichy wrote:
jdart wrote:Endgame play can involve very long-range planning, and computers are still not terribly good at that.
On the other hand, many games, including those at GM level, are decided by mistakes that no modern engine would make.
And many times pre-computer GM analysis of endgames is faulty or incomplete.
I agree that many non top GMs make mistakes, but I would put my money on GM Aronian or Kramnik against any of the top 5 engines without Nalimov or any other tablebases to play 6 ending positions in 10 minutes per move.
There is no question the top programs are far superior to even the best humans in the overall game and ELO.
I would not say in all stages, ....
Yes, that is what I said too but you cut that part.
... the only reason why top engines can easily beat Top GMs is because first they have an intensive opening and in the middlegame they hardly make mistakes;but if you take the tablebase away and present any top engines with 10 positions played by lets say Capablanca vs Alekhine or Tarrasch vs Thorold or GM Kramnik versus Kasparov and provide the engine and Kramnik or Aronian with 10 minutes per move the GM will definitively beat the top engine provided that the position are equal in material.
There is no single "only reason" - there are many reasons now that computers are superior. The top computers now just outplay the top Grandmasters period. I have played over many games of top Grandmasters (using Komodo or other programs) and what I see is that the one or both players make what the computer considers a slightly weak move, the score drops a little but not fatally, but then it happens again, and then again and pretty soon it's a lost game. In general it will be several inaccuracies. In many game the winning player returns the favor with inaccuracies of his own but sooner or later one of the players prevails.
It used to be said that computers are all about "tactics", but tactics is really a human term which to generalize a bit means they "don't miss anything within their horizon" and these days tactics is also positional play. An opportunity to make a pawn slightly weaker is not "tactics" or "combination play" in the traditional sense but it is what computers do much better than humans. Or it could be "combination" to free a cramped position that the human missed. Humans are still superior in "understanding" what cannot be seen or directly computed but that doesn't buy much any longer.
As far as openings are concerned, modern opening theory is based a LOT on computer analysis, and a couple of centuries of human analysis do not provide much that computers cannot figure out for themselves in seconds or even less than a second. And humans would be poor in the opening if they didn't study and memorize opening like crazy, so I see no justification for considering that computers should be forbidden to consider in advance what they should play while thinking that is natural for humans to do. How is that reasonable?
Databases make very little difference in the strength of the programs. At best perhaps a tiny boost, but there is a school of thought that they play worse with databases too due to overheads and such.
I can present you with more than 10 positions played by Capablanca or alekhine, or any other top endgame elite where the engine don't not select the correct move withouth using tablebases.
Of course you can cherry pick positions like this, but the only thing that matters is the complete game. If you could start human/computer matches from positions which human understand better of course you will find that humans will do better.
Nobody questions the fact that computers have certain weaknesses. Even Larry who is very pro-computer says in closed positions computers play like weak club players. What you fail to consider is that one could take some other subset of the game and make a very strong case that humans cannot play chess very well and computers will put them to shame because they have too many weaknesses. It would be just as valid to say that. But none of it really matters except actual results.
I cannot help but think of the Monty Python "Life of Brian" movie where one of the characters cried, "what have the Romans ever done for us?" His buddy said, "well they did make a difference with the crime rate", then it was "other than the crime, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Then it was the sanitation, the roads, etc. Finally he had to say, "other than the roads, the sanitation system, the crime, the aqueduct, education, irrigation system, medicine, clean water, WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US?"
This reminds me of that because you are systematically claiming that the only reason computers are better is because of the very things they are good at, and yet that it's somehow not relevant. Oh sure, if you take away the book, the endgame databases, the human errors, limit the game to positions humans are better at, give humans 10 minutes per move, THEN LET'S SEE HOW WELL THE COMPUTER DO!!! Is there any other advantages you want to take away from computers to prove they are actually inferior?
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.