Author: George Mathews
Date: 23:13:09 06/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 19:19:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >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? Hi Dan I could never put it so Eloquently, but you make alot of sense.
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.