Author: stuart taylor
Date: 23:55:16 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 23:47:53, blass uri wrote: >On July 01, 2000 at 19:37:08, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On July 01, 2000 at 11:03:18, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2000 at 03:57:00, Jerry Adams wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The Best Software on the best machines are not playing grandmanster level >>>>chess. Or should I say that Rebel century is an exception? Generally Software >>>>Programs in my opinion are not demonstrationing grandmaster results? I mean at >>>>40\2hrs or am I mistaken? >>> >>>Mr. Adams, >>> >>>I think that a Dr. Hyatt is pretty competent to make that assertion. He has >>>been doing this computer chess programming for over a quarter of a century. He >>>also knows about grandmaster level play. The machines just don't have a clue in >>>complex positions. They will get better. In five to seven years we will have 12 >>>teraflop home workstations and 8 man tablebase chess programs with the >>>executable portions over 2 gigabytes in length. That should give the programs >>>enough simulation sophistication. >>> >>>But who is in a hurry. I don't believe that the earth will end in 2012 AD. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Tim Frohlick >> >>Who's in a hurry? >>I, for sure. I only wanted a simple, but true strong GM in machine form, so I >>can practise against and learn from it, and understand all the marvels of chess, >>before I have to give up chess completely, as I have other things to spend my >>time and interest on. But I'm just stranded in mid-air! >> With books, you can't really check things out, and the authors are often >>wrong, and GMs or even any humans are not always available, certainly not >>according to my convenience. And software, while able to terrorize almost >>anyone, still doesn't yet enlighten me in the ways that I'm seeking. >>S.Taylor > >playing like a GM is not enough for what you want because a real GM can explain >his(her) ideas not only in moves and a machine that knows only to play like a GM >cannot do it. > >Uri I'll take care of working out alot of the ideas. But my faith that there is what to work out, (besides tactics) is not great enough to feel it worth putting my heart and soul into it. And there is plenty written by GMs about their own games and ideas. But to improve greatly, you need to be participating. I wouldn't really mind if a talking program can talk on a higher level than Fritz. It will still be not too serious, but very stimulating-which would be good, I think. But not just (stum) rubbish. Still, practice is the main thing-even without explanations. The subconcious does most of the learning! But playing todays machines, you learn many things, but some things you learn wrong. E.G. you don't beleive the computer will ever succeed in pawn storming your king, so you don't care too much about castling into such positions. And even though I often try to pawnstorm my computers king, I don't know enough about it, because I havn't had much oppurtunity of being a victim of it, by the hands of the computer. But their defensive abilities are nevertheless quite good in such cases, as in general, only, they don't have good attacking knowledge in these positions, which is a major human speciality. If the programs made substancial improvements in SMELLING THE BLOOD OF A KING, that might make the whole difference to software improvement. S.Taylor
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.