Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 15:28:43 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 18:12:59, Ron Langeveld wrote: >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 I deeply agree with you ,but you have to admit that computers rarely blunders as often as humans do (GM too..). Regards
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.