Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:19:29 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 19:06:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >Jose Carlos wrote: [snip] >> A.2. Computers and humans do not compare (like the soldier and the tank). > >I think this holds a lot of truth. > >> B. If we speak of 'quantities' (namely ELO rating), we can certainly compare >> humans and programs, and say _with numbers_ if programs perform like GM's >> or not. > >This assumes you can express GM in term of an ELO rating. I do not think >that is possible, or at least has any meaning. A horrible, incorrect, and sweeping generalization: 1. GM's plan for half and hour and then chop your head off with a samurai sword. 2. Computers cram your head into a meat grinder and slowly turn the lever. Neither one feels very nice, but at least the carrion birds can have something to eat later on in either case. Some GM's play like computers (Morphy/Polgar are tactical freaks) Some computers play like GM's (Yace, Fritz, Rebel, Chess Tiger at times -- for example) will come up with dazzling moves that pay off in the long run and seem strange at first, just like a GM. I think we can reach a consensus on something: 1. Are GM's better than most of us at playing chess? Sure, that's why they are GM's. 2. Are computer chess programs better than most of us at playing chess? Sure, they almost never make a mistake. The least tiny slip and they grind you into powder. Therefore: Computers and GM's are better than most of us are at playing chess. Anyone surprised at this marvel of logical induction?
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.