Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:08:45 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 12:16:10, Roy Eassa wrote: >On November 07, 2001 at 18:50:31, Tina Long wrote: > >>I still believe that seeing what the top players have played, and reading their >>reasons and analysis in books is FAR better than "infinite analysis" by a >>current chess program. > > >I know you are indirectly referring to Uri, who thinks computers are better. I did not say that computers are better in the opening stage. What I said was not about opening position but about a position from a test suite and I said that I prefer to trust analysis of weak humans of today who use computer programs to help them and not analysis of GM's of the past. It was about a position that was played only once. Opening theory is based on positions that are played more than one time so I trust humans more to do serious analysis of them. >I'm kind of in the middle. I think top GMs are better most of the time, but >occasionally the computer can find something that GMs have overlooked or >underestimated. The best of all, of course, is a top GM working WITH a >computer. I agree if you talk about opening theory. I disagree if you talk about analysis of positions or games and I believe that in this case the top GM's often do not care about the quality of their analysis and if they do not use computers then I prefer the analysis of computers when they get a long time and not the analysis of a GM who did not use computer and probably used less than an hour to analyze the position and give his comments. 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.