In an Advanced Chess Event (All humans are allowed to use computer and any commercial chess software available on the market), do you think Amateur players would then have the same chance as Grandmasters? 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
You mean the amateur and GM both get a computer? I think right now, the GM wins. But in a while, it will amount to a computer-vs-computer competition. The GM will have a slight bonus but the winner will basically be whoever has the better computer. The GM only wins if the computers are equal.
Already today, I think the amateur’s best strategy is to just do whatever the computer says. The GM will sometimes make better decisions than the computer but the amateur rarely will, and will often be worse. So the competition right now is basically: (GM plus computer) vs (computer by itself).
I agree with the previous post: a top program in the hands of a GM would beat a top program in the hands of an amateur.
By the way, whose hands are in the laptop photograph and what brand/model laptop is it? Just wondering if it could be Susan or if it is some otherwise nondescript unknown stock photo.
As usual, the blog is excellent.
I think the GM would win because of the greater understanding. This is shown quite well in that in proven incidents of correspondence chess cheating, there are not as many wins for the cheaters as one would expect. So, it is harder to cheat using computers in correspondence chess than it is in standard? This is quite telling.
The advantage of computers is that they can calculate much quicker, explore many options, and have the tablebases, etc. The human brain calculates slower, tires, can lose concentration, and is somewhat blinkered sometimes.
Given the same odds, I think GM’s would come out clearly on top. At least, I hope so for the future of chess and the Grandmaster title.
I think the previous PALS (not the most recent)tournament showed that if the time controls are slow enough, disciplined amateurs with multiple engines can do very well. The team that won were average chess players at best. They showed that if you understand the how to use the computers very well you don’t need to to understand chess very well.
The GM would win based on this:
GMs beat computers with regular frequency. They know what computer moves are weak and which are good and thus an amateur choosing the computer’s first choice might not be making the best move.
chris marks make a good point … the key is whether both sides are limited to just 1 computer, or they can have more than 1. Not all computers are equal, and similarly, not all softwares are equal, and these are just as important as the differences between the 2 human participants (GM and amateur). If I’m not mistaken, the most recent Man+Machine tournament that I read about this year showed that disciplined and experienced amateurs who are skilled at utilizing multiple computers with multiple softwares have beaten many GM/IM opponents assisted with just 1 computer.
GMs no longer beat computers with any frequency. Even Kasparov and Kramnik drew their most recent man-machine matches and Adams got crushed.
Multiple computers are the same thing as one faster computer. If you want to run multiple programs, just open separate windows for them.
Hi,
Probably the real question is “what is the difference between a GM and an amateur ?”
I don’t know the response but I am sure that many amateurs are able to beat a GM with a computer. How could I prove it ?… let me think…
I challenge Susan polgar in this kind of match 🙂
No. While computers are often good with tactics, they are often not good with positional ideas.
I was not just talking about tactics. Numerous games are available in their database,
so they just can take the right moves ( 😉 ).
And also positional gaming are include in programm (for example Chess Tiger or Kimo).
Find me just some GM who are not afraid to play against amateurs in this kind of match. I have the amateurs ready to fight.. 😛
somewhere along the way – and not far in the distance – there will be the day – NO human player has any chance to win a rated, especially time rated chess match against some “silicon adjusted software”
– 64 squares
– 32 pieces
– about 10^52 (other calculations assume around 10^60) possible moves are NOT infinite for quantum driven semiconductor machines
– without any doubt: at the latest of 10 years now on, no human being will be able to beat any computer software in playin’ a match of chess – i’m sure …
does it matter? are ferrari cars allowed to participate on 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000 yard heats?
will silicon machines lose their right of using opening and endgame databases?
did wilhelm steinitz win his match against god – a knight and pawn down?
future is very hard to know – but even Topalov would lose (or draw) a match against me and my fritz – machine, if he got the P1 CPU and i the P4 HT … (chess is not a strategic game – by therms of games theory – but a full defined one – it is detachable – and finite-dimensional!)
greetings, Vohaul
PS: if i had the chance to play a Topalov or a Kramnik or a Leko or so – i’d never use a comp … but wooden pieces – to be honest – i should never ever use a duster on them …^^