Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 05:01:44 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 06:45:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >As always let me make some short and sharp remarks. > >Computer chess is the simulation of chess. While the opening moves and the last >technical endings can be played with perfection, the simulation is still far >from its optimum in the middle game. > This was already known, Rolf , comps are still behind the top players , the real question is : How much time will be necessary to beat regularly the best players? >What Vladimir Kramnik has shown with his masterpiece, the second game, is the >unpleasant truth, we should never forget. Machines have no understanding for the >beauties of chess. Obviously they don't understand , they are machine , but to beat the majority of human players the understanding is not strictly needed. Either they play with perfection, because the solution is >already there,or they play like a newborn kid. > >The confusing of a training tool with a genuine chess player is the reason for >the speechless amazement of many computer chess lovers. But would they be as >astonished if I would present a "philosopher" with the implementation of the >complete Encyclopedia Britannica and tried to enrol "him" in Harvard or in the >peace conferences at the Lake of Geneva? I can cite some experts systems that make diagnosis as good as the best medical doctors... > >If you are absolutely determined to participate in human chess, although the >mainpart of chess is far from being solved, you must not be surprised if a good >human chess master is reveiling the nature of the whole fantasies from time to >time. > >Because you can fool chess amateurs with the mere superiority of complete >opening dictionaries, you can also fool chess masters from time to time, if they >go for some as-if in the 19th century excursions into the land of combinations, >but you won't be able to always fool the best chess thinkers, or let me better >say chess artists. Many GM's have been fooled by comps...included a certain Garry Kasparov. Because they don't need bad books or certain ideosyncratic >weaknesses of the machines, because they feel and understand the myst of the >imperfect simulation and then sure they have the necessary technique for a >challenge over the whole game, and not only some isolated parts amateurs are >familiar with. >This is the explanation for the actual situation of computer chess with all the >problems the programmers of the super computer software already had in the 80's >until DB2 in 1997. As I predicted since 1997, the human chess masters have >understood the message of the old trick with the traditional secrecy. Because >without a feeling for the "architecture" of someone's "chess" there is no way to >prove the human superiority in five or eight games. But if you have it, then one >or two games are well sufficient. As Kramnik proved yesterday. Let's wait for the end of match before further judgements... w.b.r. Otello > >(Please nobody should feel offended - personally. Those who never dreamed in the >categories of the hyperboles of PR were no target of the 'mathematical' proof.) > > >Rolf Tueschen
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.