I see the list has Capablanca at number 2 with 92%. He must have had a super charged abacus to train against! I followed some links from the preamble to the chess life article on professor Regan's anti cheat tests. Fascinating, by matching computer human choices in specific complex positions he can give a likelihood of a human of a specific grade finding a move. This gives mathematical credence to something we have all felt for a long time - you can tell if you're playing an engine .... or Capablanca with an abacus.
Perhaps the match-up indicates that some players (such as Xu, Gheorghiu, and Capablanca) tend to think in highly schematic ways, which is how computer programs work, whereas other players (Fischer, Kasparov) are highly idiosyncratic in their thinking, which is much harder to code in a finite set of unambiguous algorithms.
Originally posted by moonbusSome have said that Capa tended to go for simpler positions and in that sense may have given himself less chance to go wrong. When the quality of play index first came out comparing world champions it was the "positional" players who scored highest. My suspicion is that in order to maintain positional control great tactical vision is necessary.
Perhaps the match-up indicates that some players (such as Xu, Gheorghiu, and Capablanca) tend to think in highly schematic ways, which is how computer programs work, whereas other players (Fischer, Kasparov) are highly idiosyncratic in their thinking, which is much harder to code in a finite set of unambiguous algorithms.
Originally posted by RagwortHmmmm. Makes me think. What computer programs excel at is calculating variations, once the search tree has been pruned by general principles. Reti was once asked how many moves in advance he routinely calculated, and famously answered "none". Of course, that was hyperbole; he was certainly capable of calculating when he had to. But his answer illustrates a good point about the difference between human- and computer-play. So this suggests that the humans who match-up closely with computer-play may be employing a similar thinking pattern to those implemented by computer programmers, whereas the Reti-ists among us tend to think rather more abstractly and less calculatively.
Some have said that Capa tended to go for simpler positions and in that sense may have given himself less chance to go wrong. When the quality of play index first came out comparing world champions it was the "positional" players who scored highest. My suspicion is that in order to maintain positional control great tactical vision is necessary.