Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:50:35 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2004 at 10:27:54, Duncan Roberts wrote: >the opposing argument is some people say tablebases and opening theory >is not computer's memory of other's work, which would be legitimate but looking >things up in a book, which a person is not allowed to. (although I think Hyatt >said you can get round that) > >I think kasparov's preferred way to make things 'fair' is for the human be >allowed access to any opening books the computer has. > > >what is your opinion on a human having access to his own computer databases.? I think this goes back to Tord's point: computers and humans have different strengths and weaknesses. A human can access its memory, and it does. The human just can't remember as much material, at least not in the same way. A computer remembers millions of individual games which, by themselves, don't have any strategic meaning. A human sees a lot of games and remembers patterns that have strategic meaning in millions of individual games. >(the fact that he may be a bit slow to access it compared to the computer is his >problem and does not make it intrinsically unfair.) > >duncan
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.