Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:54:34 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 06:51:33, stuart taylor wrote: >I mean, even now, the GM's simply fall to pieces if they try to be tactical >against computers. So their only chance is to try and circumvent such positions, >and if they don't succeed, the outcome is very bleek indeed, for the human. > And soon, the final hurdles of computer chess will be overcome, in which even >style alone might suffice them to blow away any GM opposition, even on PC's. > >So, what is the great value of our human GM's, once people realize what's going >on. > I can say one thing, that Computer chess has helped me to be less addicted to >chess in general, as it shows up so many weaknesses in what I used to think was >extreme genius, in chess. It still is, but not so "supernatural" as I imagined. >(I don't mean really supernatural, but bordering on it). >S.Taylor 1) it is surely not true that GMs are 'no match to comps' - it is just a close call in practical games, and 2) if you want to improve your chess, who do you ask - the computer or the GM? i regularly analyse my games with fritz and it will find all my tactical mistakes. but i also analyse them with a strong IM from time to time who can point out my positional mistakes and give me guidelines on how to think and how to improve. he can tell me which plans are good in certain types of positions. no computer can do all this - at least not yet :-) cheers martin
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.