 |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc, rec.games.chess.computer
From: help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com>
Date: 26 Apr 2007 17:34:30 -0700
Local: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: Greatest chess players ever? Capa, Kramnik, Karpov, Kasparov, *in that order* (cuz 'puters don't lie!)
On Apr 26, 6:26 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> - it fails to understand the simple argument of 'normalization'. The But the test crippled Crafty by cutting off the search > Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko original article pointed out that Crafty > was used since it was open source and could be modified; the stronger > programs are not, but in any event Crafty is hardly a weak tactics > program and the authors are looking for a standardized (normalized) > way of spotting blunders. at only 12 plys. In a game between two patzers, this might be a minor flaw, but at the world championship level, things are not always so simple. Although this cutting off at a specific ply makes it > -The fact that Riis found positional sacrifices not evaluated by No, they aren't. Only in games between patzers is > Crafty is not convincing since: (1) such positional sacrifices are > rare--as computers have shown, the intentional sacrifice of material for position "rare". > chess is largely tactics; True. But not all tactics are visible at a depth of only 12 plys. Tactics can flow from positional advantage, with virtually no limit as to depth. > (2) everybody Misjudged would be more accurate. > will be judged equally by Crafty, > so others pos sacs are also scored Except at random, due to all the errors. > 'badly', so nobody will lose relative standing to one another, > and (3), as long as assumption (1) is valid, Crafty will find the most But not good enough for these guys. > "mistake free" chess player, or one that plays closest to being > "tactics mistake free", which is a very good way to determine a good > chess player IMO. As all the world champions were good at tactics, it > Now of course the surrebutter (rebuttal to the rebuttal) will be that A silly statement. As we saw, the wild, attacking > players like Tal will score poorly--and indeed they (he) did--but > let's face it, Tal was more of a shock player that relied on playing > the man rather than the board. In a match of coolheaded Karpov or > Kramnik versus Tal, all in their prime, the less emotional player is > likely to win style of GK gave GM Karpov a very hard time, except for their very first match. How was GM Tal, in his prime, all that different from GM Kasparov? Another example was the cool, calm, collected > (unless he loses his cool and loses...haha... think of It's not this simple. The world champions are all > Topolov vs Kramnik). Also nobody ever became champion ignoring > tactics. > That is the lesson of chess. Think of all the bogus moves > made by beginners, sacrificing knight for pawn, "to break up their > pawn chain", with no positional advantage. If you believe chess is > positional play more than tactics then such bogus moves should work > more often than they do. They do not. competent at tactics, so the differences between them are more subtle than just "who was the best tactician". > So, understanding how chess works, and how chess playing computers If you mean the one I think, it was horribly > work, and having seen Crafty evaluate pretty good myself, I have to > side with the original article. skewered by a whole slew of critics under "Reader's Feedback", in addition to all the points made by the various critics who had their articles published. The primary issue is not that computers are I would have preferred a deeper analysis by The ideal might be the HAL9000 computer -- help bot You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||