Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 11:47:26 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
.<snip> > >But . . . it is really irritating to know in advance that your trusty >chess-playing software is going to give you bad advice occasionally. > I gather that you never heard of the "Pareto" Theory, it is alright to be correct 80% of the time, and miss 20%. Humans also make mistakes, and they make far more mistakes than computer engines. At least the chess engine is consistent with its mistakes, the human is much more unpredictable. What it boils down to is that some chess positions, the chess engine still have difficults with, especially in closed positions, where maneuvering and placement of pieces is the key. Human GM's excel in this area, however, remember that it has taken many years for a chess engine to come this far to excel in open games. No human GM would play against the chess engine in open positions. They would certainly loose 99% of the the games. So you are complaining that because chess engines evaluated closed positions, or positions which require maneuvering wrong the chess engine is useless. Quite the contrary, how many human players do you know will play closed positions? Very few games played by 1600 ELO players are closed positions. I've seen very few games from this category play the players playing the Stonewall formation. Also Kasparov use the chess engine for his training, I remember that Kasparov said in an interview that (Fritz) helped him to improve his ability to calculate deeper and more accurately. Yet, in the games played by Kasparov you won't find closed positions, stonewall formation, when he plays against other GMs. He goes for dynamic positions, semi-open positions. And some chess engines are capable of playing well and analyzing well in these type of positions. Yes, there will come a time when the chess engine will play perfect chess, when that time comes it will certainly be the death of chess. Why would anyone want to play the game, if a machine is capable of playing flawless chess to a perfection. Which human wouldn't use the machine, and all the games would end up in a draw. So what is the point of reaching chess perfection? If reaching this perfection will bring the game to its doomsday!!! My two cents worth. Laurence
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.