Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:26:43 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 19:07:22, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On May 19, 2002 at 18:21:23, David Dory wrote: > ><snip> > >>To say that the computers have no long range planning is not quite true. Their >>search with modern computers and closed positions is not as good as some humans' >>long range planning. To be honest though, the best humans' get beat about half >>the time when they try their * superior *, long range plan, so just how good is >>the human long range planning? >> ><snip> >>David > >Well, the issue may become moot in a few years. If current trends continue, the >chess computers will be able to whip all humans routinely. When/if that >happens, all talk about the deficiencies of chess computers in "planning" may >come to an end. It may then be that the use of planning strategies would be >pointless. > >Bob I think the biggest "issue" is that it just might be that the "human mind" is not nearly so remarkable as we give it credit for being. IE can it be that a simple circuit, based on binary math, can actually beat the much-ballyhooed human mind in a game of chess? Without planning? Without understanding a lot of stuff? Without having a lot of "experience"? I suspect this will eventually be found to be truer than we imagine.
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.