Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:02:54 07/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2002 at 19:25:44, G. R. Morton wrote: >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 Well, I must say that's a good case in point, and well-quoted. S.Taylor
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.