Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 18:10:27 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 20:47:41, Steve wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 20:27:42, Pete R. wrote: > >>On July 15, 2000 at 18:56:41, pete wrote: >> >>>To add another opinion :-) >>> >>>Current results IMO prove that under certain circumstances "computer entities" >>>like the Junior one in Dortmund can reach GM-like results. >> >>I don't see any need to tiptoe are the "are they GM strength?" question, it >>seems pretty clear to me. If you define GM strength as entering tournaments and >>achieving a GM norm, then I think computers can do this, in fact we just saw it >>done twice. If you mean "can they assess a position as well as a human GM" then >>the answer is generally no, because they are not good in certain types of >>position due to lack of positional understanding. We can speculate that >>opponents might generally adopt such anti-comp strategies and so a machine >>wouldn't be able to achieve a GM norm against such a field, but this is neither >>here nor there. Some players play anti-comp, some don't, and some refuse to >>play at all. >> >>The important thing is how well they play generally. No offense to the DJ team >>in any way, but this tournament has given me zero incentive to buy Junior in >>addition to my other software, because I see that it plays similarly aimless >>moves. I already have this in Fritz and Hiarcs. ;) If it played good positional >>chess and never made a stupid or aimless move, even without winning a single >>game, I would pull out my credit card in an instant. How it plays is vastly >>more important than whether it wins. Just because DJ Lost to Piket who has been practicing ever since he had a draw against Deep Junior last time they met in G/60, doesn't mean that Deep Junior is not one of the best positional program in the market against Human. I honestly don't think that none of us can match the anti computer knowledges that Mr Piket has gained ever since he decided to practice against Deep Junior. Pichard. > >I feel the same way, but what you're asking computers to do is operate with >human-like intelligence, and the direction that computer chess has taken >indicates that the people who really understand this stuff (programmers) don't >feel this goal is attainable. Frankly, I'm happy for the GMs (not to mention >IMs and NMs), because those who are willing to teach ordinary players about >chess -- through lessons, books, game annotations, etc. -- should be able to >make a decent living from the game. Computers may beat them in tournaments (or >not), but they can't match their teaching skills.
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.