Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 03:09:04 07/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 04:21:13, odell hall wrote: > > > I was extremely impressed with Garry Kasparov and his match with Deepblue. I do >not believe Deepblue, with all it's billions of calculations was able to >tactically outplay him the entire match. But I wonder, if the computer's strong >point is only tactics, and if many here are right, that the only way computers >win is by some tactical mistake by humans, then why did Kaspy lose the match >against Deepblue? Please don't cite the Six game, Dr. Hyatt has illustrated on >many occasions that Several international masters were still able to win the >game against the Strongest Programs after the allleged blunder ....h6. So then >why did Kaspy lose the match? He stated in one particular interview that >"Quantity became quality" therefore simple Calculation can overcome any lack of >positional understanding the computer may have. Can we talk about this? Exactly : Tactics on the long distance become Strategy. > I guess the main object of this post is to praise humans for still having the >ability to compete with computer on a tactical level, but i think only the best >humans have this ability. The ability to make deep calculations in chess by humans is mainly due IMO to a very skilled "visual memory", in other words the ability to see the variants with the mind's eye. I don't know if this can be considered purely an innate capacity, but I have some doubt about this coming from the outcome of the Polgar Sisters "experiment". 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.