Author: Adam Oellermann
Date: 06:02:55 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>>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 is the same for me. I think this will be true for some time in the future, >programs will continue to get stronger and have GM results today, however, a >human can describe strategy and positional points to me that I can not get from >just playing or analyzing with my computer. For me, I find both the program and >a superior human player to be integral for my continued improvement. I agree. One might well ask, what is the point of a human sprinter, when we have motorcycles? I believe that The Day Is Coming (I won't venture to guess when) when leading computers will be able to dominate matches against humans of any strength, but who cares? What is the entertainment/learning value of watching silicon matching silicon with incomprehensible, inscrutable <yawn> chess? Many go as far as to say computers will kill chess. I doubt it. Even if we were able to build a machine that would solve chess, this will never take the challenge out of matching wits with other humans. Computers are interesting tools for practicing and analysing, but after all, sparring isn't sparring against other people the real point? Regards Adam
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.