18 Jun '16 15:23>1 edit
Chess players are frequently very concerned with their playing strength. To this end, let us consider 2 situations: 50 OTB games against human opponents under tournament conditions vs 50 OTB games against 4-5 different computer opponents set at level about the same as has the human playing against it under the same conditions. Human beings frequently have more imagination, and even flashes of brilliance in chess tournaments than computers, but are affected by heat, light, noise, and other distractions. Computers on the other hand are unaffected by outside distractions, and are normally tactically superior than humans, however sometimes display weaknesses when faced with closed positions, and once a weakness is found, a computer will tend to repeat the weakness, rather than correct it.
So...what would be a more accurate gage of one's playing strength. 50 games against consistent, tactically superior, but positionally flawed computers, or 50 games against inconsistent but imaginative and fast learning humans?
So...what would be a more accurate gage of one's playing strength. 50 games against consistent, tactically superior, but positionally flawed computers, or 50 games against inconsistent but imaginative and fast learning humans?