Author: Howard Exner
Date: 13:21:37 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 13:18:58, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 03:48:42, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On January 28, 1999 at 12:24:59, Howard Exner wrote: >> >>>>For IMs and GMs it should be easier to win because programs depend a lot on >>>>their opening books. Look what they play withoug opening book. For us patzers >>>>strong enough but masters know what and why they play... >>> >>>As we have moved away from the original topic I hope you don't >>>mind that I changed the thread name. My way of thinking about humans vs >>>computers at shuffle chess is different. Both are stripped of opening knowledge >>>but who will be more at home in the chaos of the shuffle chess position? >>>I liken it to composed problems. Computers treat these complex, weird looking >>>positions no differently than they do other more familiar positions as >>>those found in regular play. Humans on the other hand find such positions >>>disorienting. For humans our strength in chess is to a larger degree dependent >>>on pattern recognition and familiar themes. Computers while also >>>having chess knowledge are known more for their number crunching >>>skills.Therefore I think humans may suffer more from the chaotic shuffle chess >>>opening position. >>> >>> I'm not sure how popular this form of chess is for IM's >>>but if anyone has some games to share I'd be interested. >> >>I keep it. I tink that IMs and GMs have better understanding of positions and >>therefore better chances. > >IMs and GMs have a better understanding of familiar positions. It has been shown >that if you show them a totally bizarre chess position, they flounder almost as >much as the rest of us. Since shuffle chess will result in unfamiliar positions, >the programs should have a distinct advantage, That is my view also and what I hoped I was conveying to Harald. I do not believe in the generalization that IM's and GM's have a better understanding of positions. It depends on the specific position. That the disorienting position of a shuffle opening would somehow help the human more is difficult to accept I believe that we rely on patterns to bolster our odds in defeating computers. Sure the computer will suffer also with its opening book gone. So it remains a matter of opinion who will suffer to a greater degree. I respect Harald's view as being as valid as mine but just disagree. No big deal. > especially once important opening >information is programmed into them. > >My luck, I would play an IM in shuffle chess and it would be that rare time (1 >chance in 25,401,600) when the pieces show up on their original squares for both >of us. > >KarinsDad :)
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.