Uri wrote:
Depends against whom. A leading chess algorithm like Stockfish 2.2.2JA or Houdini 2.0c Pro running on a Xeon E7-2870 PC would probably defeat 98% of chess players in the world.
But there is still this 2% of high-quality chess players left that this chess algorithm would probably lose to.
Hi,
the point is:
the engines have a very limited knowledge of chess. The few they know has been teached them by their programmers. For the rest, their strenght is based on calculation. In fact, more you give them power of calculation and more they become stronger and stronger.
They cannot plan. They search the best lines (they search what they think they are the best lines, even engines make many mistakes in analysis, just need to observe a game with the analysis of some engine).
humans have a vast and deep knowledge of chess.
They perfectly know what is important and what is not. They can plan easily, on short medium and long range.
They can judge, with a little calculation, if an apparently difficult endgame is won, draw or lost.
They suddenly recognize a bad piece (for example a bad bishop blocked by its own pawns, typical of the bishop b7 for black in many endgames and sometimes in middlegame).
They know (and they know what and why are) the main concept of a position on the board and calculation, for humans, it is only a method to be sure to go for the right road.
Althought in recent years the positional play of the engines has been improved, i think there is still a huge difference in this field in favour of humans as there is a huge (of course) difference of tactics ability in favour of engines.
The main point is: can humans compensate their relative weakness in tactics with their deep knowledge of basic principle of chess?
Let's make an example: sometimes, some very strong human (some years ago Carlsen) sacrifices its rook for a minor for two reasons: the bad coordination of the opponent pieces and the total control of the light squares.
How many engines would have done the same thing basing on these factors so relatively axtract?
Carlsen had a huge advantage for the whole game but its opponent found a good defence and it was a drew.
But it was an example.
I think a 2800 is not there cause its tactical ability against other humans.
I think he has a very deep knowledge of every corner of a chess game.
If he had a micro chip in the head, he would be almost perfect.
In the same way, if modern engines would have the neurons of a 2800 GMs would be almost perfect.
Mikhail Botvinnik, former world champion (many times) was famous for many things: one of this was that he forced himself to avoid any kind of tactical position against Tal in the rematch for the world title. And he won.
Would have he lost against a computer?
I don't know, who knows, he was strategical and positional (and tactical of course, like everybody).
Tigran Petrosian, probably the best defender of chess history (Bobby Fischer suffered so many times against him)..
The correspondant players are extremely strong, not only nowadays. In history they have been always very strong. The quality of their games have always been at the top.
Why?
It's obvious, because they have a huge amount of time to ponder.
But this thing, what does it mean?
It means simply that humans scales perfectly, that if you give enough time to think, human can explore every corner of the position and very hardly he can make a strategical or tactical mistake.
Everybody, of course, is free to have an idea and i don't think that what i wrote will make someone change its mind.
My hope is just that someone could consider it like a point a new, deeper thinking.
Thank you for reading
Best Regards