CRoberson wrote:In the July 2008 edition of Chess Life (page 44), GM Lev Alburt
claims "Playing under classical conditions (40 moves in 2 1/2 hours),
today's best grandmasters are still favorites vs. Rybka and Fritz".
I was under the opposite impression, but I'm not a GM.
Sounds like a challenge for some program to me.
Just because someone is a GM, that does not mean he has a clue what he is talking about.
We want to see proofs, not baseless claims !
The top engines are proving their superiority more and more convincingly.
Matthias.
If you understood his point, the discussion would already be over.
Humans have _far_ superior positional understanding. By a factor of at least 10x and probably more than 100X better than any program around. however, the programs have far superior tactical skill, when the effort is spread over time. In positions like the Nolot-class tests, humans are simply better. But OTB, where fatigue and distraction play a significant role, the computers have an edge.
Been that way for a long time, and nothing has really changed, except we are beginning to see the tactical frailness of human chess over a 3-4-5 hour game is the limiting factor that is making programs superior. But that is the _only_ reason...
A humans positional understanding is based on a plethera of 'rules of thumb' in which the majority have many exceptions. The computer is very good at finding the exceptions. The human needs to search inorder to find the exceptions. The computer is better at searching. There are holes in the positional undrstanding of even the strongest humans. The incredible searh of the modern chess program on modern hardware simply plugs alot of holes in its understanding. 10X? I don't buy it.
Positional judgement in GM-level players is not based on "rules of thumb" at all. It is based on a _large_ number of games played or analyzed, which teaches the GM which "patterns" are advantageous and which are not. A GM won't just stick a rook on the 7th rank like a program tends to do, unless their experience/understanding says it is good in this position. GM players play _very_ high quality chess at under 1 second per move, which means they look at only 1-2 moves in total (1-2 nodes). Try that with a program to see how badly they play if you limit them to even 1,000 nodes per search. Then you begin to see what the GM is doing that the computers are not yet capable of.
Patterns are "rules of thumb". A pattern may win 85% of the time, but it is the other 15% that makes it a "rule of thumb". So, if a GM-level player plays moves in one second he is just using more complicated "rules of thumb" to do it.
People can see and computers can not. Put a blindfold on a GM and do not tell the opponents move. Just let him/her feel the board for it. Now only give the GM one second per move!
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
bob wrote:I'll say it again... can you tell the difference between positional understanding and tactical skill? I can. Every computer makes horrible positional moves, but they cover up these mistakes by exploiting every minor tactical mistake the human makes...
I also can....
Every computer makes a horrible positional moves and covering these mistakes by exploiting every minor tactical mistake the human makes....
With all my respect Robert,but your statement lacks any sense of logical thinking....
If the positional playing level of the computers are so horrible as you claim,their tactical superiority won't help them that much crushing every top human GM in sight....
Think about it again....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
That is of course 5...50 times intentionally exaggerated !
Of what use is positional understanding if a sequence of sub-optimal tactics throws the game out of the window ?
Matthias.
Again experience over guesswork here. Under the right circumstances, such as the old correspondence games Mike Valvo used to play against Deep Thought, you can see just how wide the gap actually is. Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence. And there their positional judgement is the critical component...
As I said, computer tactical accuracy is what is winning games today, not positional judgement where they are still sorely lacking. However, at today's speeds, tactical accuracy is obviously quite enough to more than compensate for the ugly positional mistakes (most of the time, although humans still win games).
Again experience over guesswork here really ?
Are you saying your ridiculous 10-fold to 100-fold better posisitional play of humans (without any statistics) is not guesswork ?
Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence chess?
Ridiculous ! It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
You must be kidding us Robert....
Very high quality chess at 1 second per move,the humans
Even if they move the piece with an eye click,they won't be able to play a high quality chess,sorry,in this life time....
No. I guess he means very high quality Chess in comparison with what computers do at 1 ply.
And he is right of course. Human intuition and ability for planning at these low depths is crucial.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
You must be kidding us Robert....
Very high quality chess at 1 second per move,the humans
Even if they move the piece with an eye click,they won't be able to play a high quality chess,sorry,in this life time....
No. I guess he means very high quality Chess in comparison with what computers do at 1 ply.
And he is right of course. Human intuition and ability for planning at these low depths is crucial.
something is wrong here,you can't compare time,1 second,with 1ply of a computer,he's comparing too totaly different things,or does he mean 1 second for the humans is comparable to 1-2 plys by the machines
Of course dumping the chess engines to 1-2 plys will affect horribly the playing strength,nothing new here....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
CRoberson wrote:In the July 2008 edition of Chess Life (page 44), GM Lev Alburt
claims "Playing under classical conditions (40 moves in 2 1/2 hours),
today's best grandmasters are still favorites vs. Rybka and Fritz".
I was under the opposite impression, but I'm not a GM.
Sounds like a challenge for some program to me.
Just because someone is a GM, that does not mean he has a clue what he is talking about.
We want to see proofs, not baseless claims !
The top engines are proving their superiority more and more convincingly.
Matthias.
If you understood his point, the discussion would already be over.
Humans have _far_ superior positional understanding. By a factor of at least 10x and probably more than 100X better than any program around. however, the programs have far superior tactical skill, when the effort is spread over time. In positions like the Nolot-class tests, humans are simply better. But OTB, where fatigue and distraction play a significant role, the computers have an edge.
Been that way for a long time, and nothing has really changed, except we are beginning to see the tactical frailness of human chess over a 3-4-5 hour game is the limiting factor that is making programs superior. But that is the _only_ reason...
A humans positional understanding is based on a plethera of 'rules of thumb' in which the majority have many exceptions. The computer is very good at finding the exceptions. The human needs to search inorder to find the exceptions. The computer is better at searching. There are holes in the positional undrstanding of even the strongest humans. The incredible searh of the modern chess program on modern hardware simply plugs alot of holes in its understanding. 10X? I don't buy it.
Positional judgement in GM-level players is not based on "rules of thumb" at all. It is based on a _large_ number of games played or analyzed, which teaches the GM which "patterns" are advantageous and which are not. A GM won't just stick a rook on the 7th rank like a program tends to do, unless their experience/understanding says it is good in this position. GM players play _very_ high quality chess at under 1 second per move, which means they look at only 1-2 moves in total (1-2 nodes). Try that with a program to see how badly they play if you limit them to even 1,000 nodes per search. Then you begin to see what the GM is doing that the computers are not yet capable of.
You must be kidding us Robert....
Very high quality chess at 1 second per move,the humans
Even if they move the piece with an eye click,they won't be able to play a high quality chess,sorry,in this life time....
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
That is of course 5...50 times intentionally exaggerated !
Of what use is positional understanding if a sequence of sub-optimal tactics throws the game out of the window ?
Matthias.
Again experience over guesswork here. Under the right circumstances, such as the old correspondence games Mike Valvo used to play against Deep Thought, you can see just how wide the gap actually is. Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence. And there their positional judgement is the critical component...
As I said, computer tactical accuracy is what is winning games today, not positional judgement where they are still sorely lacking. However, at today's speeds, tactical accuracy is obviously quite enough to more than compensate for the ugly positional mistakes (most of the time, although humans still win games).
Again experience over guesswork here really ?
Are you saying your ridiculous 10-fold to 100-fold better posisitional play of humans (without any statistics) is not guesswork ?
Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence chess?
Ridiculous ! It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
Matthias.
Really? Do you think a computer at correspondence could take down a top GM??
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Again experience over guesswork here really ?
Are you saying your ridiculous 10-fold to 100-fold better posisitional play of humans (without any statistics) is not guesswork ?
Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence chess?
Ridiculous ! It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
Matthias.
Really? Do you think a computer at correspondence could take down a top GM??
Give me a break! This is getting ridiculous!
Yes, it is ridiculous for you to answer without first reading.
Let me simplify my statement for you : if humans beat computers at correspondence chess, it is because the humans use computers to cross-check their own poorer tactics.
Is that clear enough ?
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence chess?
Ridiculous ! It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
Matthias.
For clarification:
Humans cross-check their weak tactics with strong engines in correspondence chess, and it is those engines that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes".
Bob erroneously gave this tactical merit too humans.
So anyone with "give me a break" doesn't understand the point.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Humans make _very_ few tactical mistakes in correspondence chess?
Ridiculous ! It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
Matthias.
For clarification: Humans cross-check their weak tactics with strong engines in correspondence chess, and it is those engines that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes".
Bob erroneously gave this tactical merit too humans.
So anyone with "give me a break" doesn't understand the point.
Matthias.
Agreed
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.
