Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:35:40 07/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
>>If it hadn't been, we would have needed to search for _other_ reasons why DB2 >>might have chosen Qb6. But, we don't need to now, because we _know_ why it >>played that move. > >Objection as before. You can't compare bananas with asparagus! A better analogy here would be Red apples to green apples. Computers are well known for making "computer" moves, which is of course a pejorative. In general, this is due to the fact that computers cannot (in general) search to the depth where GM strategy is operating. This is slowly changing however. I think this is what shocked Kasparov. Here was a machine whose speed could take it to the next level in some positions. When the machine did not make the expected "computer move", K became suspicious. But there need not have been suspicion, because we know that compterchess will "get there" eventually. The fact that DB demonstrated this to some degree (axb5/Qb6) is being comfirmed by long searches of lesser machines. To try to define the debate down to whether the DB machine could have found the move, versus another program is just silly. One day all programs will find the GM moves as a matter of course. The fact that DB was getting there sooner than the others is only logical, considering it's wonderful speed! Wouldn't you expect that to be the case? It's just a logical progression. Regards,
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.