Author: David Dory
Date: 16:39:05 06/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2001 at 18:34:58, Dana Turnmire wrote: > I'm sure there are grandmasters that read the posts here but it seems that >most people really interested in computer chess are the lesser mortals. Sort of >like the middle-aged father with a son playing quarterback in high school and >dreaming of the day he will become the next NFL star he never could be. > In the few tournaments I played in a few a years ago my rating went to 1450 >USCF and I'm sure if I had continued it would have continued to go up but in my >heart I knew I would never be among the best. > Do you think most computer chess enthusiasts live through their programs? >Everytime I try to play a "serious" game against CM8000 I realize how weak a >player I really am. > Do most grandmasters think of them as merely a training tool? It seems they >don't share the passion over which program is top in the SSDF and things of that >sort. Yes, quite insightful, Dana. Grandmasters are chess PLAYERS (OTB), not computer programmers who happen to love solving the dilemma's of chess with a program. I believe most GM's see the computer as a great tactical, and endgame study aid, and nothing more. Unfortunately, we haven't got to the point where the chess program keeps learning, on it's own, and adds further to our knowledge of long range planning in the game. We are still feeding the programs everything they know with the exception of the endgame tablebases and whatever it may learn from it's still too shallow search. I'm certainly not a GM, but I am not impressed with most games I've seen by a computer. They are tactically sharp, (very!) of course, but inept in long range planning.
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.