Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:07:45 11/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2003 at 11:43:14, Drexel,Michael wrote: >Forget your theoretical viewpoint. >The GMs don't talk about the future, they talk about the present situation. My point, supported by real examples, is that even the best human players, even when they all agree, are not always as smart as they think they are. I already gave the one example where not a single GM saw the forced mate that the computer saw. Bob mentioned how Deep Thought played ugly (I assume according to strong human players) but handled all comers. How about Kasparov claiming that Deep Blue could "never play a move like that"? Well, it can, and it did. There was a time when humans played pretty poor chess, and if you didn't play the same style of chess it was frowned upon, even if it was a superior style. Think about the times of players like Morphy and Steinitz and other people who changed how the game was played. If you weren't attacking or counter-attacking, you weren't a "real man", so to speak. Computers are just another "guy who is changing how the game is played" IMO. GMs who used strategies that have worked for decades against other humans think that the computer who doesn't play the same style of chess plays inferior moves. I'm suggesting that maybe that isn't the case.
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.