Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 05:08:52 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2002 at 05:12:17, Terry Ripple wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 13:01:14, José Carlos wrote: > >>On May 21, 2002 at 12:34:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 21, 2002 at 12:20:52, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On May 21, 2002 at 11:07:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 21, 2002 at 10:13:29, K. Burcham wrote: >>>>> >>>>>The answer is as simple as clear. >>>>> >>>>>They can use programs to analyze games with from other GMs >>>>>and themselves. They can use it to analyze variations from their >>>>>openings preparation with. >>>>> >>>>>But they can't learn from it. >>>> >>>> >>>>What about tactically, can a player less than 2400 learn a few tricks from the >>>>best programs? >>>> >>>>Jorge >>> >>>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. >> >> I disagree, Vincent. You can learn from the computer. It is the computer that >>can't teach you. >> No matter from what, human beings spend the whole life learning. From >>everything. You learn geology from stones, zoology from animals, physics from >>the planets and stars. >> They don't teach you anything. It's _you_ that observe, make a theory, test it >>and draw conclusions. You can do exactly the same from a computer. You play >>against it; it wins; you study the game; guess why you lost; play again; maybe >>you force the same opening and change a move or a plan... Finally, you draw >>conclusions. And your source of information is, in that case, Fritz!!! :) >> >> José C. >-------------- >Hi Jose, > >I think you are very correct with your explanation! > >Good answer! >Regards, Terry I think both are right (as very often) but Vincent Diepeveen means that a computer can't help him to understand chess (it's not because a computer show you the shortest way to mate in a KBNK endgame that a help you to understand, a book or a player "who knows" will do that in better way) and José Carlos means that computer can show "new" or "other" things ... All the difference is between "learn to understand" and "learn to show" on this purpose i'm on the same side of Vincent Diepeveen because computer are too different from human (short tactical but very accurate view against positional and planning view)
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.