Author: Normand M. Blais
Date: 14:29:59 01/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2003 at 11:23:26, Bob Durrett wrote: > >Occasionally, there is a bulletin expressing a peculiar anti-computer sentiment. > The sentiment is that use of chess engines during analysis stifles human >creativity. The basic idea is that the human cannot resist the temptation to >accept the chess engine's suggestions without question. > >I have been using my chess software [Fritz & CB] for analysis for years now. I >have felt that temptation often, and it is strong. It is reinforced by the fact >that most of my original ideas are "shot down without mercy" by the chess engine >in seconds! > >But, if used properly, the chess engine's suggestions can provide the context >and structure for a discussion, without dictating the final answer. The >discussion is between the chess engine and the human. The chess engine says, "I >think this." The human says, "No, I like that better." Then the chess engine >says, "If you try that, this is what I think would happen." And, the >conversation goes on and on. The conversation never gets "off-topic." > >Humans are capable of intelligent conversations, even if the conversations are >with a non-human chess engine. Smarter people can carry on smarter >conversations. Dumber people carry on dumber conversations. But the >conversation will always be productive if the human "stays the course." > >If the human comes up with a good idea, as a product of the human's creativity, >then the chess engine will eventually have to acknowledge that the human's idea >is good. But the chess engine will not give up easily! It takes some serious >effort on the human's part to show the chess engine the error of its ways. >Having a worthy analysis partner should facilitate and stimulate human >creativity, not stifle it. > >I see the chess engine, if properly used, as being a boon to serious chess >enthusiasts. It is a very tough debating partner. More importantly, as noted >above, the chess engine's suggested lines provide context and structure to the >discussion. Chess engines cannot be intimidated, so the conversations will be >always right to the point. A GM ought to be able to have fascinating >"discussions" with any good chess engine. A lesser mortal, like me, may tend to >be intimidated by the chess engine, but it doesn't have to be that way. Only >those who are very easily intimidated and overly impatient will have a problem >with the use of chess engines. It's a matter of human maturity. The chess >engine can teach this maturity, too. > >Bob D. No offense but this sound like playing chess by committee. Part of the committee being chess programs. A long time ago, I was playing chess by mail and I used a chess program to verify that my move was sound tactically before to send it. I remimber playing a guy from Dallas (Texas) who I'm sure (99%) was using a chess program. He forfaited the game after he found he (or his computer) was losing. Actually, he could have won if he had used his judment instead. I agree today's programs are a lot stronger and deserve some respect. NMB
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.