Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 18:43:48 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 18:24:19, Rex wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 16:18:59, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On March 26, 2002 at 07:48:10, Rex wrote: >> >>>What this means is that Computers did_not loose_any_game. A first grader will >>>tell you that would most likely mean computers had the upper hand ver. Gulko. >>> >>>Remember computers undefeated...Gulko WINLESS!! think about it. >> >>Exactly. That is my point. To a first grader it seems obvious. To the general >>non-chess playing public it seems obvious that computers are better than any >>human. My point is that I don't think it is so obvious when you analyze the >>situation. There have been a limited number of events in which humans who have >>little experience against computers have lost by small margins. It's not so >>obvious, that's my point. >> >>Russell > > >This whole excuse of little experience against computers is getting old. What >about human V human player for the first time!!! Two people playing against >each other has little_experience_ with each other!! > >NO GM should "prepair" against a match ver. a comp. by taking the program home >aND playing 100 games against it. The ONLY material given to a GM, or any human >for that matter, is past PGN GAMES to look at... > >OH MR KASPAROV I PLAY YOU NEXT WEEK IN A TOURNAMENT. WILL YOU COME TO MY HOUSE >SO I CAN PLAY AGAINST YOU 100 TIMES TO THAT I CAN PREPAIR AGAINST YOU!!!! NOT Computers play a completely different style. It's not the same as saying Shirov plays a different style than Kramnik. They both still play the "human" style of chess. Then there is the "computer" style of chess, which is very different. Humans in general do not understand the computer style of chess and while some strategies do exist to defeat computers, the vast majority of even GM's do not know the optimal approach to play a computer, and perhaps in the future when computers begin to completely dominate it will be more of an issue, or perhaps it will be less of an issue since no one will want to play them for fear of losing. Kramnik, for example, has spent a great portion of his life learning to master the "human" style of chess. If he spent several years attempting to master the "computer" style of chess, then I feel that he, as well as many other talented players, could also perform much better against computers. There are some very weak master level players who can achieve great scores against computers, because they understand better the "computer" style of chess. Imagine if a truly talented player spent years studying computer chess. I think a Kasparov of Kramnik or other world class player (of which Gulko might not be in, but maybe) would still beat computers in matches at normal time controls. It is not as simple as saying, "OH MR KASPAROV I PLAY YOU NEXT WEEK IN A TOURNAMENT. WILL YOU COME TO MY HOUSE SO I CAN PLAY AGAINST YOU 100 TIMES TO THAT I CAN PREPAIR AGAINST YOU!!!!" The argument goes much deeper than that. At least your argument was maturely made...oh wait... Russell
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.