Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 05:19:46 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 19:06:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >Jose Carlos wrote: > >>Everytime this kind of argument arises, I have the same impression: There's a >>problem of definition. What do we call 'GM strength'? >> >> A. If we speak of 'quality' of chess (whatever this can mean), most chess >> players will probably agree to one of these possibilities: > >> A.1. Computers are not GM strength because they show lack of understanding >> too many times to be considered GM's. > >This is a tricky call. Who defines 'understanding' a game? > >This is a subjective measure. I can think of two examples to illustrate this: > >a) on Tim Krabbe's pages he sometimes has the topic 'computers can't play chess' >and demonstrates positions where the computer does really awful things (in his >eyes) >So 'computers can't play chess'. > >On the other hand in his analysis he sometimes refers to a move found by the >computer. Often this is a good move the human would have a lot of trouble >finding. 'Humans can't play chess?' > >b) my own program plays several variants which it has very little understanding >of. In one variant is just picks the move that offers it the most options not >to get mated. In another the only heuristic it has is 'put pieces near the >opponents king'. In a way it does not understand the game at all, by human >standards. Yet it is at the same level of top human players. It makes awfull >moves by human standards. Yet it often wins with those moves. > >> 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. > >-- >GCP I am not sure what understanding means here, but paraphrasing a half remembered quote.... GMs will be said to 'understand' more about chess until computers can see farther than GMs can feel. In some positions this already happens, I guess, but not nearly enough for computers to dominate - yet. Frank
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.