Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:53:36 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2002 at 06:03:52, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 13:34:32, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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? > >Without daring to presume to know how a Grandmaster prepares, my impression is >that it's mostly the other way around. I think that it is dependent on the position. In some openings GM may let a chess program to analyze for hours when he sleeps and he may discover some novelties. I know that there were novelties that were discovered by a computer. Computers may find ideas that GM's did not think about and I see no reason for GM's not to use computers to find novelties espacially in positions that they believe that computers are stronger. That is, checking variations of manual >analysis. In general I think that letting a program contemplate a certain >position is less efficient than verifying lines analysed without a program. There is no reason not to let the program to analyze the position at the same time that you analyze the position independently. The program may find moves that you did not think about and you can learn from them. The program may find a novelty at the same time that you analyze the position and do not find the novelty. 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.