Author: Amir Ban
Date: 10:29:29 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 09:48:31, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: Dear Enrique, I'm surprised to read that you subscribe to this fast vs. knowledge nonsense, which is as false as it is popular. The simple truth is that all programs are as fast as their author can make them, and have as much knowledge as their author practically knows how to put in them. >Mind you, I also think that without intuitions, whatever that is, exact, >verifiable thinking tends to sterility, so from my let's call it feminine >intuition (astrologically I am the intuitive cancer, double cancer in fact, soon >triple I guess :(, what crap this astrology), and going back to this comp-comp >vs. human-comp discussion, I sometimes wonder. To make it short, when looking at >the Rebel-Baburin and Rebel Sherbakov games, I "know" that the fast finders >couldn't play as well as Rebel. Untrue. J6 finds the critical choices in Rebel - Sherbakov to be rather easy, and in my opinion understands Baburin - Rebel better than Rebel. It thinks that at some points Baburin mishandled a white advantage (e.g. 28. Qc7 ?). >Following the games with Fritz 6 was >overwhelming evidence in this direction. I understand it was much too optimistic for black, but then, so was Rebel, or so we are told. All programs are stupid when their evaluation is way off. This happens to Hiarcs, or every other vaunted "knowledge" program, quite often. Fritz, by the way, often shows understanding that would make the so-called knowledge programs green. On the other hand, why this alleged >positional, human-like (?) superiority wouldn't also show up in comp-comp games, >so "knowledgeable" computers would compensate with it for their slower tactical >speed? Because it doesn't compensate and comp-comp is decided by tactics. That's wrong. Computers kill other computers all the time when their opponent doesn't understand a position. It compensates for order of magnitude in speed. >Is >this "superior" understanding only the adaptation of a program to human playing, >with the only value of making human life more miserable in chess, and we believe >this anthropocentric approach greater? Is there really a difference between >comp-comp and human-comp? So what's up? I really wish we would be less of a >flower collector and more of a botanist. > Just my opinion. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.