On 15 Oct 2003 17:50:45 GMT, (Sterten) wrote:

You have missed my previous points about computer programs.

Their strength is only tactics. Their endgames , positional and long term
planning is very poor. At my level of approx 2200 they could only assess
my tactics. This is not a good basis for assessing my rating.

Most computers will beat the best humans purely on tactics if they look
deep enough.

yet, they beat 'em. And that's (still) the only thing ,
what the rating system is about.

Us humans cannot evaluate millions of positions per sec for
material, so we use other methods of playing chess like the positional side,
long range planning , postional concepts and pattern recognition etc.
Computers are completely inadequate for assessing the human method
of playing chess.

you can hardly argue that computers are so weak positionally when
they have 2800 ELO. And this almost corresponds to their strength
when playing against human opponents. Subtract 20-50 points, if you want.
Sure, computers have their strong parts and their weaknesses, but
then (some) humans have this too. Yet I didn't see people
questioning the ELO of players specialized in tactics or
positional play or closed positions or endgames or
who always play some special openings or such.

That's the thing about ELO - it doesn't matter how you win - just that
you do! If you can do it by tactics, by positional crush, by
psychology even - it's all a matter of style. Computers have their
strength and they play at 2800 ELO - but just because they do so
doesn't make them an authority to completely evaluate one's play in a
given position.



Do you understand how computers play chess ?

better than I do understand, how humans play chess


Guenter.