Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 10:13:57 07/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2002 at 10:20:34, stuart taylor wrote: >I'm not repeating questions with this. I'm continuing the sequence and building >further on previous discussions and conclusions. > My question is, what do computer programs still lack which the top humans do >not (lack)? > Can we yet say that computers can come up with true masterpieces which are >indeed worthy of deep study and of being displayed for the next 100 years as >works of art? > Or is there something lacking which makes it fall short of such a standard or >worthiness? > S.Taylor (1) Heart, soul, sense of humor, emotions, . . . (2) At rgcc, in the "ICC and Cheating" thread, there was a bulletin posted by the "infamous" Sam Sloan, where it was said that some internet server somewhere routinely compares human moves to computer moves [especially in human versus computer games] and goes so far as to develop a numerical value representing the similarity of the human moves to the computer moves. It was stated there that humans generally make moves which are different from computer moves, especially in the middlegame. The weaker the human, the more the human moves differ from the computer moves. Grandmasters play more like computers simply because both the GMs and the computers find the best moves most of the time. [Assumption: There is often only one "best" move.] All of this implies that there is still a lot of improvement to be made in human chess, computer chess, or both. Not necessarily, though! Maybe having separate styles of play [human styles versus computer styles] is not such a bad thing, assuming that the chess engine programmer was not trying to program his chess engine to play in the human style. Maybe humans would do well to try to play in "computer styles"? Bob D.
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.