Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 03:58:44 07/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 06:21:35, odell hall wrote: >On July 10, 2001 at 06:09:04, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>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 > > Your observations are very "Deep", maybe it is intuition, which allows humans >to do this, But even our best scientist today cannot explain the human mind and >why we have our gifts, nevertheless very interesting sugject in my opinion. I >still believe Garry would win a rematch against Deepblue, even the improved dEEp >blue 3, if he had games to study. The human spirit and will , always triumps >over the mechanical beast. About the intuition in chess, I think that it depends from a sort of "pattern recognition" process based on previous stored patterns, that improves with experience , helping the player to avoid the long process of calculation. This retaining process is also analyzed by De Groot experiments in '50 , if i'm not wrong. Since intuition is basically an "heuristic tool" it is IMHO prone to error and has always to be validated by an exact calculus to avoid possible blunders. 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.