Author: Ron Langeveld
Date: 15:12:59 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 18:00:46, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 17:08:08, Ron Langeveld wrote: > >>On July 01, 2001 at 15:16:38, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>not what i was talking about at all. >> >>If you're talking about the average number of "blunders" that a GM of a certain >>level is allowed to make, then this also hints the gap that computers cannot >>fill to become GM. Notwithstanding the official regulations regarding GM norms, >>real GMs exhibit the behaviour to acknowledge a "blunder" and learn from it. >>They have the knowledge to see the error, if only afterwards. They can admit it >>was a mistake because the know it was one. Computers however cannot admit to a >>mistake, for they will play the same blunder again and again, just because of >>lack of knowledge. They simply don't know better. This imho sets apart the >>programs from the flesh. >> >>Ron > > >Not completely true...if the learning mode is activated in the program. >Many programs have this kind of feature, nowadays. Booklearning is not the same thing. There are no programs that can "learn" a single bit more than extending the existing book with a won/lost variant. That's something completely different from what I mean. Ron
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.