Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 12:41:33 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 10:48:40, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi srrge: >Well, you said it: a GM, being a human being, can subestimate an opponent!! A GM >maybe gets bore; a GM maybe want to piss. A computer does not. There our chance >is. Of course you are right in a lot of things that I also know; I wwas just >giving a new glance to this in order not to fall in a dogma. I have the feeling >that computer perfomance Vs humans has been sistematically downgraded. Look at >what we do ourselves: each time we are beaten we just forget the game: each >scarce time we get a draw or a winning, we rush to save the game and show it to >our friends and you sincerely have the impression you are thre great thing. I >have seen many master being defeated badly one game after another by my top >programs, but then they win just one and begin to laugh on the computer, "this >stupid beast". >regards >fernando An amateur who almost lose about ALL his games against a certain program will praise his first win! He will shaow it to you, giving and explaining all the variations and subvariations and what he intended to play if the computer had played this or that. It is like the same as beating Kasparov. If he beats me 99 times but in the 100th game he blunders, I will put the emphasis on THAT last game because it is above what could be expected and what the average game score was. As for the "stupid beast", I think that people feel uneasy about losing a game to a "thing", especially when it is a game of reflection and strategy! Masters are even more upset by that, since they are titled players and they has to achieve special results to get the title. Not so long ago, chess was seen as a game necessitating a good intelligence, while its best performers were regarded as Geniuses. Now, if a "thing", a unintelligent object, can do as good or better than them, maybe tis doesn't require any intelligence, after all? And this forces us to define more accurately the concept of "intelligence" or to include the computers amongst the intelligent "things" in the universe. Though, for me, a computer is not more intelligent than a toaster or a rock, I remember discussing it with a friend, once. He was saying that there was a gradation in intelligence and that a computer was "more" intelligent than a toaster, as intelligent as an ant, but less intelligent than a rat, for example! Serge Desmarais
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.