Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:07:40 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 13:56:42, KarinsDad wrote: >Fair enough questions. Let me ask you some questions. > >1) Does a 1400 rated human player know how to play chess? I am very happy because of your question. Perhaps we can find a better understanding of the question whether machines can play chess. Yes, in my opinion, a 1400 human player, even at 1200, knows how to play chess. These players can well play through games of Kasparov and all the great players and they are able to understand the beauty of chess combinations. What these players are lacking if they are already of older age, they can not concentrate long enough, so they lose material, they can not think systematically, so they lose themselves into stupid continuations. It is somewhat the question of the contradiction of passive and active knowledge. Actively these players are unable to play what they can understand if it's played in mastergames. Now please take a look at computerchess. You find a completely different situation. In general a machine plays a perfect game without losing material if you define artifically certain borders of depth. Beyond these depths the machine is absolutely blind. Compared with human chess the general depth of the thought process should give the machines a better strength. But the possibility to challenge real masters is only existent since we have the opening books because in the opening it is not sufficient to look ahead deeply enough. The philosophical question whether machines could play chess does not make sense because in the end the results count and not the way how it was achieved. > >2) Is the ability to make legal moves sufficient to be said to be playing chess? Personally I would say 'No'. In our human world it is not possible to be regarded as intelligent if you constantly have certain failures in your understanding. The machines still play good chess over certain move sequences but then suddenly the play worse than the worst beginner, in special in the endgames. But even if the machines would only allow a training of the openings and nothing else, I would be happy about it. If I discuss the relationship of computerchess and human chess however, the computer side should show more respect for the talents of the human chessplayers. > >3) If so, since computers make legal moves, do computers then know how to play >chess? > No, in that philosophical sense. >4) What happens when you take the board away from the 1400 rated human player? >Is he still able to play chess? What if he makes a mistake and makes an illegal >move while in check? Surely he would make much more mistakes or would not even be able to continue the game. But still such players can have a passive understanding of the game of chess what could not be said about a computer... Hans Gerber > >The basic point is that people can wrangle about this all day long and get >nowhere. > >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.