Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 01:48:15 10/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 19:57:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 20, 2004 at 19:06:31, Tony Nichols wrote: > >>On October 20, 2004 at 04:17:26, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On October 19, 2004 at 22:00:24, Tony Nichols wrote: >>> >>>>We dont bow down to calculators do we. >>> >>>If the contest is to see who can do arithmetic calculations with the greatest >>>accuracy and efficiency, then we would indeed bow down to calculators as they >>>are clearly superior at this task. >>> >>Why do you think we dont have these competitions. There is no point. Just as >>there is no point in seeing who remembers theory better computer or man. >>> >>>>They definitely do >>>>math faster than humans. >>> >>>Right. At some point the calculators became faster than humans for doing simple >>>math. Calculators continued to get faster, while humans did not, and now >>>computers are billions of times faster than humans. Right now computers play >>>equally as well or better than the best humans in the world, and computers will >>>only get faster. Do you dispute any of this? >>> >>Yes! I don't think computers play = to the best human players and are certainly >>not better. They will get better but I think they have a long way to go. By the >>way speed is not important when the program is not even analyzing. What is >>purley mathematical about opening books and endgame tablebases? We dont use >>calculators with built in solutions. They have to compute each equation, so when >>we talk of chess programs let it be that part that computes. >>> >>>>The point is chess programs are tools for chess >>>>players. >>> >>>That may be what chess programs are *to you*, but that isn't what they are to >>>everyone. >>> >>I understand this and it makes me sad. To think someone could be so involved in >>chess and not be a player is weird. I suppose some people use calculators as >>paperweights, but this is not their best use! >>> >>>>If we want to have matches between humans and computers we should not >>>>forget this. By the way, I will not be "snickering at how it doesnt even >>>>understand" I will be having good laugh thinking about all the people who think >>>>it does! >>> >>>I don't think anyone in this discussion claimed that computers understand >>>anything. What I am claiming is that chess is 100% purely mathematical and that >>>some day computers will play the game perfectly, while humans will never >>>approach perfection. My claim can be proven mathematically, at least >>>theoretically. I doubt that your claim that humans will always have a chance can >>>be proven, and I'm not even sure there is any evidence to support it. Your claim >>>seems mainly based upon human ego, emotion, or hope. >> >>If we assume that chess is 100% mathematical then why does the computer need the >>crutches of opening books and endgame tablebases? Surely modern computers can >>compute better than humans. Let this be the competition and I claim humans are >>far superior to computers! > >I think that the importance of tablebases is not high and they were irrelevant >in most of the computer-human games. > >humans also remember book lines that they did not invent and I do not see the >difference between it and computers. > >Remembering lines is not always an advantage even if the lines are correct >because you need to know what to do later and I can say that even kasparov lost >a game when he simply did not remember his home analysis at some point and could >not find the correct line in the board. > >In other words even if you remember some theory it may be better not to use it >when you do not remember enough because you may get better position but lose >because you do not remember how to continue in the better position. > >Uri I think if you took away endgame tablebases we would see many more endgames. In fact I think GM's would be lining up to play endgames against the computers. Regards Tony
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.