Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 22:15:40 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks, Rolf, for the implied compliment about my previous silence on 'matters of debate' and about my statistical contribution to the CO7 workshop. [ I personally don't think it would have been worth coming to Maastricht just to hear my 15' on that. I was merely re-analysing the results of Heinz' big, post-Karlsruhe/Ph.D./book, M.I.T. experiment on self-play ... to show that they are more decisive than Heinz has yet said. ] I have certainly confined myself in the past to technical/endgame matters. However, I do feel that computer-chess can 'add value' to human experience rather than just displace it. In this case, that means that computers can add to our enjoyment of the game, and that FIDE should recognise that, even officially. Actually, FIDE have made positive official statements about computer chess in the past. It is not impossible that they will do so in the future. For the future, be assured that you will always be able to tell when I'm giving technical advice and when I'm expressing an opinion. Obviously, computers have an advantage in memory-access terms - in opening books, endgame tables ... and in huge hash-tables of potential, evaluated positions. Whether this is 'unfair' or not is debatable: no 'rules' are bieng broken. In the interests of 'good play', one might level the playing=field a little, allowing humans access to opening books and endgame tables. After all, Kasparov would not have made that move-transposition which led to him losing the last game of the 2nd match with Deep Blue. That would have led to a more satisfactory outcome in my view: there is little satisfaction in a win gained by an elementary opponent blunder. g
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.