Author: Howard Exner
Date: 12:15:26 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1998 at 06:44:45, Graham Laight wrote: > >On April 23, 1998 at 02:55:56, Howard Exner wrote: >>I think Comp vs Human games will remain as fun events as in Anand-Rebel >>and Crafty-Yermolinsky (on the internet). Sure wish the Harvard Cup or >>something similar would emerge again. As for serious rated play in FIDE >>tournaments it will never happen. I believe computer play would be to >>closely defined to resemble a form of correspondence chess for them to >>be allowed the chance at a GM norm. > >I don't understand that last sentence. > >Why would computer play be defined to resemble correspondence chess? The computer program is in essence the code of the programmer(s). The programmer is making use of an external tool called the computer to generate moves. So too the correspondence player who surrounds himself with external tools (books, chess board, databases, paper ...). To me the computer is the equivalent of a sophisticated form of paper and pen (input/output). Computer "memory" is as intelligent as a light switch - only usefull when instructed what to do by humans. Will Anand be playing some semi-sentient entity in Rebel? No, he is taking on Ed Schroder and team, who happen to be using a computer. Arguments to this are the typical, the computer memory is the same as the human brain. A good case can be made for this but I think the definition of the computer as simply "raw material" that the human brain manipulates is the view I hold. So in general I'm saying that Rebel, Crafty and all programs are in essence the sophisticated chess move makers of the human (done of course at lightning speed). Correspondence players do the same at a slower pace.
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.