There's no sense in anyone adapting their style to try to fare better against today's computers. The result will be the same no matter what.
How would Mikhail Tal fare against today's computers?
Sort:
It doesn't matter who jousts at the silicon dragon, he's going to get his ass kicked. Tal included, and he's my favorite player.
blueemu wrote:
Tal would fare poorly against a computer... because he's dead.
Was that supposed to be amusing?
Perhaps some due respect might be in order.
Sep 10, 2012
0
#7
Here's a true story. After the free ICS folded and subscription ICC was born out of the ashes, FICS was soon formed in the belief, at that time, that internet chess should be free. I belonged to FICS almost from the get-go and played tons of games there and at other FICS telnet sites over the world, particularly in Denmark and Germany. I haven't played there in so long I can barely remember the commands I used to know as a stenographer knows shorthand. In my last couple weeks there, I played nothing but one of the (c)'s, with a rating of 21XX. My blitz rating before playing this monster was in the upper 1900s. I lost game after game, played at slow blitz, usually 3/12, when it would take advantage of the tiniest inaccuracy it seems and chew me to pieces. In the last game I played against the (c), going into the endgame I was up a K+R+N+2P vs K+N+P AND I had something like 4 mins. to it's 1.5 mins. I KNEW I had an won game, but I also knew I had to be careful. I was actually sweating. While I was taking time to look for possible forks and other surprises, the (c), which had been moving kind of leisurely, started moving immediately as if some adrenaline had kicked in. I started losing time and (c) started gaining time like crazy. I looked at the clock and saw I was now behind on time with basically no tangible improvement in my position. Pretty much, with a lot more time and material, I was able to stay even. . . then my time ran out.
I don't have a program; I don't want a program; I hate programs. I once had CM2000 but it's long gone. Those things are so cold.
it is my belief that the computer would take the material cooly defend and win easily in the end
Sep 10, 2012
0
#9
OldHastonian wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Tal would fare poorly against a computer... because he's dead.
Was that supposed to be amusing?
Perhaps some due respect might be in order.
I played Tal in Saint John in '88. I respect him. I am also aquainted with his sense of humor, and I assure you that he would not have been offended by my flippant reply.
blueemu wrote:
OldHastonian wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Tal would fare poorly against a computer... because he's dead.
Was that supposed to be amusing?
Perhaps some due respect might be in order.
I played Tal in Saint John in '88. I respect him. I am also aquainted with his sense of humor, and I assure you that he would not have been offended by my flippant reply.
I also had the privilege of playing him, in a simultaneous rather than a Blitz.
I apologise if I misconstrued your Post.
St-John 88 with the World Blitz Championship? It's greatly wonderful to see a 50 year old, out of his prime, really weakened by his renal disease to come on top and win this Championship where the likes of Kasparov, Yussupov, Ehlvest, Georgiev and co. participed!!
To see he even got the energy to engage some players with his ever courteous demeanor in a simul just skyrocket the respect I have for the man. For me he was way more than just " a wizard from Riga".
Samurai-X wrote:
It seems like Tal relies on the opponent not to exploit the possible weaknesses of his attacking. Playing against computers of today-ish (maybe those of the last decade), wouldn't it force him to change style and/or take less risk?
I personally think that Tal would probably fare better to try forcing the computer to be as defensive as possible through his attacks, instead of something he wasn't known for, prophylaxis. I still think he would lose though, not just because of his style isn't best to play against machines, but because, that is how good computers have gotten.
Once computers force you to be totally defensive, it's over. His style probably does better than most against a computer, but I would say that very strategic players, using positional prophylactic play, tend to have the best results against computers because, they don't risk as much as an attacker, while keeping alive the possibility of winning tactics and or position.
Tal seems to prefer to venture into crazy positions with wild tactics judging from his games, making his opponents make sense out of it. Tal will not do well against computers as computers are able to calculate a dozen of moves without breaking a sweat. Maybe Tal can thrive against computers in blitz as they will be inaccuracies on most side but winning a standard tactical game against computers is just almost impossible in my opinon.
I hate programs as wel,but love Tals style.any player living or has ever lived,would lose against todays most powerful chess supercomputer..and chess in 1000yrs time may die out due to this.
Sep 10, 2012
0
#15
Many of Tal's most spectacular wins were only effective over the board against a human opponent under a time limit. Detailed analysis has shown that most of the unusual moves he played were unsound, so from that perspective he would lose. If he knew that he was playing a computer, then he would probably fare much like most other GMs when playing a (modern) computer, many draws and perhaps an occasional win, but with the computer coming out on top.
batgirl wrote:
Here's a true story. After the free ICS folded and subscription ICC was born out of the ashes, FICS was soon formed in the belief, at that time, that internet chess should be free. I belonged to FICS almost from the get-go and played tons of games there and at other FICS telnet sites over the world, particularly in Denmark and Germany. I haven't played there in so long I can barely remember the commands I used to know as a stenographer knows shorthand. In my last couple weeks there, I played nothing but one of the (c)'s, with a rating of 21XX. My blitz rating before playing this monster was in the upper 1900s. I lost game after game, played at slow blitz, usually 3/12, when it would take advantage of the tiniest inaccuracy it seems and chew me to pieces. In the last game I played against the (c), going into the endgame I was up a K+R+N+2P vs K+N+P AND I had something like 4 mins. to it's 1.5 mins. I KNEW I had an won game, but I also knew I had to be careful. I was actually sweating. While I was taking time to look for possible forks and other surprises, the (c), which had been moving kind of leisurely, started moving immediately as if some adrenaline had kicked in. I started losing time and (c) started gaining time like crazy. I looked at the clock and saw I was now behind on time with basically no tangible improvement in my position. Pretty much, with a lot more time and material, I was able to stay even. . . then my time ran out.
I don't have a program; I don't want a program; I hate programs. I once had CM2000 but it's long gone. Those things are so cold.
I agree. But this thread solved a msytery for me of you. Pop i salute you. Youve been there and done that kinda thing.Its nice to see grandpop sharing really good information and historical background. It really helps younger generation keep up the good work.
I'm no expert at all but I heard that these engines score bad results if they are not allowed to use their databases in openings and endgames.
He was the best tactician of his times. He would definitely proove something for today's computers
He may be the best tactician of his times but Houdini is probably the best tactician of all time.
It seems like Tal relies on the opponent not to exploit the possible weaknesses of his attacking. Playing against computers of today-ish (maybe those of the last decade), wouldn't it force him to change style and/or take less risk?