Author: martin fierz
Date: 13:46:34 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 13:34:32, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 12:34:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >[snip] >>GMs know tactically more than programs, so you can analyze with them, >>but not learn from them. The computer doesnt 'show' a new pattern concept >>to you. So you don't learn from the computer something. You can learn >>yourself only when analyzing with computers, that's why i say you can't >>learn FROM the computer. > >What about a novelty discovered from long time analysis by some program? If the >GM remembered the novelty and used it, wouldn't that be learning from a >computer? > >What about probing a desired line for deep tactical shots? > >I don't think computers will show GM's any techniques. But I think they can >demonstrate facts. The GM's can make important inferences from these facts. the question is how you define "learning". there is "rote learning" which is learning a move by heart even though you don't really understand or couldnt find it yourself - this is what GMs can and do use computers for: to analyze their opening novelties they use fritz & friends, especially in sharp positions. what i would call "real" learning is to learn a new concept, or a new pattern. now if you study chess with a strong player, he can explain this concept to you. if you work with a computer, all you get is that some move loses tactically because of a long combination. if seeing one such combination increased your tactical skills, yes, you would be learning from the computer. but i think chances are slim that this happens. aloha martin
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.