Author: Chris Carson
Date: 06:15:28 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 09:02:55, Adam Oellermann 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 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 I agree, I do not fear dominate machine chess play. I enjoy auto raceing, horse racing and sprinting. I enjoy visiting my family and friends even though I can visit using the internet or the phone. I do not see computers destroying chess, I see them as one more technical achievement (enhancement). :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.