Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:34 07/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 08:10:10, Omid David wrote: >On July 15, 2002 at 07:36:08, GuyHaworth wrote: > >> >>Deep Blue II beat Kasparov fair and square ... GK should not imply otherwise if >>he is. >> >>However, he is probably correct in saying that silicon chess players are not yet >>as good as carbon ones. >> >>The misguided impression that computers are now better than the best humans has, >>in the recent past, arguably subtracted interested from: >> >>a) computer-computer chess >> >>b) computer-human chess, and maybe even >> >>c) human-human chess. >> >>Maybe FIDE, the ICGA and Kasparov together should correct that impression, and >>jointly declare that: >> >>a) the comparison of the best human and computer chess players is still an >>'open question' and that > >It's not an 'open question'! as Smirin recently proved, humans are still far >superior than computers. Kasparov's loss was a terrible bad luck (+ dirty tricks >on IBM's behalf). > >I strongly believe that all chess programs are dump, not being able to see some >of the obvious positional elements in a position. If a chess program like Junior >or Fritz loses 5 games in 100 to me (2250 Elo), it means that computers are by >no means superior to humans. (I certainly won't be able to beat a 2700 Elo Human >5 times in 100 matches!) > >P.S. >I'm saying this despite my being a chess programmer. I think the statement is way too strong. Humans are better than computers in a narrow domain. That domain has at least a couple of identifying characteristics, maybe more: 1. narrow/deep tactics. Humans do this far better than computers due to superior forward-pruning practices. 2. closed positions. IE the stonewall type positions, where tactics are not an issue for a long time, until pieces are on the right squares and pawns are ready to advance. 3. deep kingside attacks, such as the trojan horse positions. If the program can't see something bad, it will eat material until it chokes on it. Of course, creating positions whare any (or all) of the above characteristics are present is _not_ easy... But if a human chooses to "play real chess" against the computer, he is going to have a great deal of difficulty and will probably lose more than he wins, no matter who he is. If he chooses to play to the program's weaknesses, then the results might be far different. > > >> >>b) they will work together to facilitate further human-computer events >> >> >>An official recognition by FIDE that ... >> >>computers, via databases, the web, chess-servers, chess-engines, and events >>involving computers, have added value to the world of chess >> >>... would be most welcome. >> >> >>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.