Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 22:23:39 09/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 1998 at 00:01:10, Roy Brunjes wrote: > >I think the subject says it all. Of course this is a huge matter of opinion, >but if a large group like this comes close to a consensus, then I'll consider >the input valuable. To me, human play contains more subtle, >positional/strategic stuff as well as speculative sacrifices (fairly rare for >programs I gather - though some claim Hiarcs 6 does spec sacs). > >Thanks! > >Roy What does it mean "playing like a human"? If you look at the games of a Petrosian and compare them with those of Tal, Fischer, Kasparov etc. you will find that ONE SINGLE human style doesn't exist. Your question seems to imply that humans play chess in a way, while computers/programs play another way. In any given chess position, you do not have an infinite number of good/playable moves, but still more than one (usually or at least often). Now, today's programs do play moves that any human could/would play, just like a GM would play moves that another GM would not. Between Petrosian and Tal, WHO had the more "human" style? Surely you heard that Capablanca's style was compared to the one of a machine? The program's don't play "inhuman" moves, now... :) Serge Desmarais
This page took 0.01 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.