Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 14:18:20 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 18:14:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 17:28:45, Peter McKenzie 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. >>> >>>Whatever commercial propaganda says about chessproducts, they >>>are weaker in all respects than a GM, except one: they always >>>play a move at the same level. >>> >>>GM is everywhere better than a program, but doesn't have a >>>level that is always above the constant line the program has. >> >>You overlook *at least* one area that the program is better in: any endgame that >>is in tablebases! Even GMs can have trouble with simple rook endgames, and they >>are quite terrible at Queen endgames. > >No i don't overlook it. The question is whether they can learn from >it. My answer is: NO the thing doesn't explain why a move is good. Merely pointing out a move or line which the GM did not consider should be sufficient. GMs surely are not lazy. Get them started on a new path and they will fill in the details themselves by their own analyses. > >To explain it in children language: > >If EGTB says in position X: best move is Rh4 mate in 40, it doesn't >explain why in the general casus this move is good. > >> >>> >>>So a GM can't learn anything from the program, except use it to >>>analyze with. >>> >>>> >>>>not discussing opening book moves. >>>>not discussing egtb's. >>>>not discussing a pawn promotion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>lets start out saying GM eval is 0, and program eval is 0. >>>>lots of time left on both clocks. time is not an issue. >>>> >>>>the GM makes a move and plays what he sees as a safe move. >>>>GM took three minutes to move, but he cannot see the material winning >>>>combination for the program. >>>>the program takes three more minutes to see material winning move. >>>>finally program plays winning move, and GM can see combination. >>>> >>>>program wins. >>>> >>>>If GM's cannot learn strategy from programs, if GM's can only learn tactics, >>>>then the question is: in the above described game , it would seem that most of >>>>the time the GM cannot learn tactics either. if the combination is too deep for >>>>the GM to see he loses material, then he cannot see this in another game. >>>> >>>>Just wondering how a GM can learn from home practice with programs. >>>>it would seem that in a postion were the GM could play a losing move and he >>>>cannot see the deep combination, but the program can, he could not have won >>>>anyway. >>>> >>>>maybe some will answer that this is not possible. maybe some will say there >>>>is no posiiton that the program can see winning material but GM cannot. >>>> >>>>of course i am not refering to an simple oversight by the GM. i am not refering >>>>to a simple human blunder. i am refering to a situation that the GM says he >>>>could not see the combination until it was played out. >>>> >>>>kburcham
This page took 0.01 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.