Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 15:28:18 01/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2003 at 17:29:59, Normand M. Blais wrote: >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. I guess I was trying to limit the topic to doing post-mortem analyses. It is actually a lot of fun to get a group together and then "post-mortem analyze by committee." : ) Bob D. >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.