Author: blass uri
Date: 12:34:42 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 14:57:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 14:48:34, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>On June 13, 2000 at 14:19:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>That's just your opinion of "understanding." I think that computers understand >>>chess just fine. >> >>Yes, that's my opinion. I'm also of the belief that you're wrong. >> >>>But opening books are an inherent part of computer chess programming. Otherwise, >>>why does every program have one? I don't see the difference... >> >>Most opening books are not a result of programming (except when it comes to >>format, but obviously doesn't count) or output generated by the program itself, >>ie. learning files and games. Thereby it isn't an integrated part of a program, >>but an attachment. >> >>>But humans have teachers and read books. Surely programmers can teach their >>>programs...? >> >>The problem is that computer programs gets the answers without asking the >>question so to speak. Making mistakes and learning is an integrated part of a >>teaching process. Programmers don't teach anything, they offer something the >>program can't refuse nor reflect upon. They offer knowledge that has already >>been processed. I'm sorry if it's a little unclear, but I'm neither a programmer >>nor a grandmaster :o). > >Computers understand tactics. They don't plan at all (at least none that have >source code available plan). Tactically, they are clearly better than humans. > >As far as opening books, they are an accumulation. Consider chess 200 years >ago. Were the same openings be played as today? No they won't. And why not? >Because after hundreds of thousands of games under careful scrutiny, weaknesses >were found in various lines of play. > >It is obvious that humans "use opening books" because the style of the game and >types of attacks used change over time. > >Consider all the games played by GM's and super GM's in the past century. This >is the equivalent of millions of hours of supercomputer effort at analysis. I do not think that using opening books by computers is unfair but I disagree that opening books are eqvivalent to million of hours of supercomputer because supercomputer is faster than humans and it can calculate in 1 second things that humans needs a lot of years to calculate. The main problem is that humans do not know the way that humans thought in order to invent the opening theory so they cannot explain it to programs. Uri
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.