Author: G. R. Morton
Date: 16:25:44 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 They cannot match GM level play (planning) in closed positions. This is often mentioned in the recent Gm vs computer programs at the ChessBase (or Kasparov) site: "Deep Junior – Gulko. I used correct anti-computer strategy for the first time in the match. We created a closed position without big tactical opportunities. It played perfectly throughout the first part of the game, improving Stein’s play in his historic game against Bagirov. I was deprived of any active moves. But in the middle game it had to prepare f2-f4-f5, and such a long plan was above its mental capabilities. The moves of my opponent became purposeless and by the end of the game I had an advantage. " GRM
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.