Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:24 11/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2003 at 19:03:00, Russell Reagan wrote: >On November 17, 2003 at 17:59:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>What is amazing is to watch a GM get into wild tactics vs a computer, and >>win a piece. Then a few moves later, he loses a pawn. But he is still >>winning. Then another pawn. And before you know it... > > >I think people underestimate the computer's abilities because the computer >doesn't play "GM chess" or "human chess". How often do you hear the GMs all talk >about what a great lack of understanding the computer has. I wonder if the >computer thinks the same thing about the GMs :-) > >I remember the story about a computer vs. human game where all of the spectating >GMs agreed that a certain move was the best. The computer played something else >to avoid a complicated mate that not a single GM saw. You might be talking about Cray Blitzs vs Gutman, in the speed chess event in 1984 at the US Open in California. Cray Blitz was actually playing a 1900 player and sacrificed its queen out of the blue. Gutman was there with Korchnoi as the candidate's match had been cancelled or delayed and he came to play in the US Open since he was already in the US. We lost the game and after it was over, Gutman said "machine played horrible blunder, why not take the rook?" I backed up to that position as others agreed that taking the "hanging rook" would have won. CB showed them instantly that it would have lead to it being mated in some number of moves (I don't remember N, but it was something like 9 or 10 moves at least.) Gutman and the others were surprised. This was one of those fun events, anyway. We played IM Mark Diesen and with white, we forked his king and queen rook, and two moves later forked his king and king rook. We ended up with knights at a8 and h8 (we were white) which looked strange. :) > The GMs went on about how >that showed that the computer didn't really understand. Imagine if things had >been reversed, and the computer had punished any of those GMs for playing the >"best" move. > I'm reminded of deep thought here. It played what many considered to be "ugly chess". But it won nearly every game. I came to realize that the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to chess and computer chess just as well. >Long term strategies are supposed to be what the computer doesn't "understand". >From a theoretical viewpoint, chess is not a strategic game, but a tactical one. >Strategies are nothing more than the attempts of us humans to get a better grasp >on something we really don't understand (IE we can't comprehend the concrete >tactical lines that make a move better than others, while the computer can). If >a computer can search to the end of the game, all strategies go out the window. > >I wonder if the computers have the stigma of not understanding because they >don't understand what us humans have created to supplement our lack of >understanding ;-) > >In other words, I wonder if the humans mocking the computer's lack of >understanding would be similar to the indians mocking the white men because they >didn't *even* have bows and arrows. Yes. They had those ugly "fire-sticks" that made lots of noise, lots of smoke, kicked like hell, were heavy, slow to reload, etc. But, of course, they did work well. :)
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.