Author: José Carlos
Date: 05:36:06 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2002 at 08:08:52, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >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) My point was more about _how_ the idea was expressed than about the idea itself. I made a difference between "learn" and "teach". If I do something for you can understand without effort, I'm teaching you. If I do nothing to teach but I have some information, you can still learn, but with your own effort. The original question was "can GM's learn from programs?". And I answer yes, because programs generate information when playing, and a GM can study that information and learn. But programs can't teach, like a human player can. They can't do the work for you. That's the difference I point. 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.