Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:23:51 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2002 at 06:53:36, Uri Blass wrote: >I think that it is dependent on the position. Could be. >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. The question is if checking your own analysis is faster or slower than verifying and expanding computer analysis. I tend to think that checking your own analysis is faster. With the obvious exceptions, chances are that a GM is better at "reducing the tree". Guiding the computer analysis from scratch is clearly less efficient IMO. Thorough analysis is time consuming, even with a fast computer, so letting it probe a line unfamiliar to your style (or human style of play if there is such a thing) or against your percieved strengths would be a waste of time. >There is no reason not to let the program to analyze the position at the same >time that you analyze the position independently. I agree. >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. Both correct. That's more or less what I meant by "missing moves". However, both results are supplementary. In general I suspect that Grandmasters don't exploit computing power as much as they could, except for the very best. But that is merely a hunch. Regards, Mogens
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.