Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:56:01 07/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2001 at 17:23:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 20, 2001 at 15:46:49, Ed Panek wrote: > >>Be careful with the comments about levels of analysis. I would still take a GM's >>analysis of a chess game over a computers analysis. Given time a Gm will give >>better analysis than a computer. >> >>Ed > >I believe that GM's do not waste a lot of time about the comments that they give >about games because they are not paid by the quality of their comments. > >It is clear that GM's can give better analysis than computers because they can >use not only their brain but also computer programs but I believe that >practically most GM's do not use computers and do not waste a lor of time for >their comments so I prefer the analysis of chess programs. I was alos including the commments from the era where computers did not exist as a strong players. The learning that you get from a computer is very limited. You get a PV and that's it, were the richest part of a GM annotation is on the text. As an example, a young Tal said that he was going crazy to understand one position by analysis. Botvinnik said to him something like, "you have to exchange queens and you win". This is the kind of annotations that a strong GM is capable to give and a computer is still weak (non-existent) in that department. Regards, Miguel > > >Uri
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.