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....
No, he's not kidding and he's correct.
He's correct regarding the "patterns" issue,,that is a sequence of general positions regulary found in most of the games the GM study and definitely a GM can recognise such positions quickly when they appear,I even read somewhere that a top GM can memorise up to 10 000 patterns....
But playing a high quality chess by the humans at 1 second per move through all the phases of the game is simply laughable....
_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....
No, he's not kidding and he's correct.
He's correct regarding the "patterns" issue,,that is a sequence of general positions regulary found in most of the games the GM study and definitely a GM can recognise such positions quickly when they appear,I even read somewhere that a top GM can memorise up to 10 000 patterns....
But playing a high quality chess by the humans at 1 second per move through all the phases of the game is simply laughable....
I know what it is and what Dr. Hyatt meant, he's correct.
In fact I recognized the winning pattern in less then on second from the game position I showed and linked to.
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....
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. I "got it" after several years of interaction with GM-level players. GM players have great problems with computers, somewhat akin to trying to push a fairly light vehicle up a _very_ long hill. You can never take a break, or it pushes you right back down again... Against other GM players, this is not the case, because humans will make mistakes or make waiting moves that are not particularly good nor bad, unless the opponent reacts aggressively.
But against a computer, the human might outplay it significantly, until he reaches a point where his concentration falters or he gets distracted, and makes a tactical error that the computer jumps on for the win. If you look at most computer vs human games, you will see this kind of error, as opposed to the computer just slowly strangling the GM. In fact, the GM is much more likely to slowly strangle the computer, until the fatal mistake comes...
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 ?
You got it right on the first try, good. That is _exactly_ what I said.
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 do realize that when Hans Berliner won the world correspondence championship that there were no computers to use? And you do realize that _no_ GM type correspondence player just gives the computer a position and says "tell me what move to play?" They actually work out variations themselves, and then play thru them with a computer to make sure they didn't overlook any tactical shot. But not from the root position...
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.
No I didn't. Wonderful correspondence games from the 60's and 70's still stand as tactical wonders and computers find no significant errors in them. Yes computers make it easier. But a good GM is incredibly strong tactically given enough time...
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....
How about watching two GM play game in one minute first, then comment? I've had the pleasure of watching such games many times. And the quality of the moves played is incredible considering the fact that they have no time to do any real "search".
That was my point, and it is a _real_ point for those that have actually watched...
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....
What is wrong here is you are not reading. I said that at less than a second per move, a GM is _not_ searching. Yet he comes up with incredibly strong moves. Would you like to take me on using Rybka with a real search depth of one ply? Any player that has played a large number of games will overwhelm such a weak search, since it won't be very accurate tactically, and positionally it will be terribly weak...
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 ?
If instead of Ne2 as in the game, what if Nd5 were played with the idea of Nf6 blocking the path of black's QR. Just a quick look, but looks winning for white.
There's no Ne2, there's a Nd2 and it's forced...and Nd5?? is losing fast.
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....
What is wrong here is you are not reading. I said that at less than a second per move, a GM is _not_ searching. Yet he comes up with incredibly strong moves. Would you like to take me on using Rybka with a real search depth of one ply? Any player that has played a large number of games will overwhelm such a weak search, since it won't be very accurate tactically, and positionally it will be terribly weak...
When a human sees that envading a b2 hole with the queen is devastating he is searching by sight. He is aware of the defending pieces movements and just sees what is possible. He has conducted a search--not a deep calculation, but a type of search none the less, Qd8c8 Qc8a6 Qa6a3 Qa3b2. A computer has no sight. It must search in order to 'see' the board and the possibilities. Take away the computers search and then ofcourse the computer is stupid because it can not see that the queen can reach b2 and what it can do there. Search can not be excluded from the definition of what constitutes a computers positional understanding.
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
It is the strong engines used for correspondence chess that "make _very_ few tactical mistakes" and you certainly know that.