Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 14:21:25 01/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2001 at 15:10:45, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Yes indeed, and as you have said this is enterily a recreational issue in its >nature. Nevertheless, continuing the debate, as much comps and human goes to the >same board respecting the same rules, the fact they are different beast is not >so decisive IMHO. Clearly I am a different beast than Fisher, but nevertheles he >and me could be compared in terms of chess strenght. Comparing elements that have nothing or very little in common doesn't make sense from an informational gain point of view. That's why the nature of the beast means everything. In principle Fischer and you play the exact same game and the only apparent difference would be strength. Afterwards you can analyse this strength difference and desolve it into elements like talent, training and so on. Chess programs doesn't play or understand chess like a human being. Too many different variables to make the term strength an unique and interesting piece of information. The only interesting part of chess program strength is comparison between equals, ie. comparison with other programs. If you disregard strength considerations then human-comp games are interesting from a scientific point of view. The different methods of calculating the value of something that we humans can percieve as a chess move. >Probably there is more >difference between him and me according the way of playing than between me and >Rebel. At least I can draw some games with the last one :-) :-)) Regards, Mogens
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.