Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:58:01 05/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2002 at 19:25:07, stuart taylor wrote: >I mean, where are we? I cannot make it out yet. >Can we safely say that a top program of today can beat all programs from before >1996, i.e. 1995 and below? Which program, and if so, can we say that it is due >to true chess understanding and correctness, or just due to greater power to >calculate all the tactics? And even THAT maybe not, because even that might only >be due to seeing the extra ply or so. > But what about true chess knowledge? I mean long-term planning, and playing for >minute advantages etc? > Can any prgram of today beat all programs until a certain year, due to that >knowledgs alone? > >I feel that if a 1995 program can beat a top program of today in even one game, >that means that there are aspects which that older program knows better than the >new one, or why else would it win? >S.Taylor "Understanding" belongs to humans... at least now. Understanding is a difficult to define term, but IMO it implies synthesis and analysis capabilities. Computers are great analysts, but they are not able to synthesize, this is, going from concrete it to the abstract. For example, you can see a position and then get a _similar_ position in one of your games; then, you are able to recognize the similarities and apply the same plan. That is called inductive inference, and computers are still far from being able to do that themselves. José C.
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.