Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 15:51:10 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 17:35:47, blass uri wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 16:07:40, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>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. > > >Masters have clearly better positional understanding than 1400 players. >The difference is not only about tactics. No question! Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. 1. I was not talking about a 1400 beginner. 2. I made the differentiation between active and passive knowledge. Perhaps this is not to understand in English. Meant is that you have the understanding of a certain thing but you can not do it. > >Chess programs has better evaluation function than 1400 players. Yes, in general. But in certain special positions programs make big mistakes. >> >>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. > >I disagree. >Programs can often find good opening moves with no book. > >There are some cases when the programmers did not care to have some opening >knowledge like not to get out with the queen early because they think that this >knowledge can be covered by opening book but it is not the case for all the >programs and programs can challange real masters without an opening book. I did not know that. > >> >>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. > >It does not play worse than the worst beginner. >There are cases when the machine is stupid in the endgames but I do not think >that beginners can play better even in these cases. Now we have the problem of sense. In my opinion it does not make sense if we compared human beginners with good computer programs. Let us compare masters and machines since the claim is that machines could at least play like a master. In my opinion this is not true. For the reason that machines still have too many weaknesses in certain positions. Hans > >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.