Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 17:54:20 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 19:22:19, andrew tanner wrote: > There seems to be no basis for this belief other than DEEP BLUE and it's >legacy, which is a legacy of "the sky is falling" type of despair. If computers >continue to improve tactically, then GM's will learn from them and also improve >tactically. Man has always improved in everything he does. Accelerated rates of >improvement for chess computers with faster hardware or knowldege doesn't >automatically translate into wins against strong GM's. Bring it on. > > -A.T. Well i think whith more knowledge you gain a lot more then with more speed and I mean knowledge in it's game play not in how to solve certain epd's or how to become number1 on the SSDF list But how to become positionaly and tacticaly stronger The difference between a human master and Grandmaster most of the time is just that the diference of knowledge Same counts for Gm's and Super GM's You also could look at the Kasparov-DJ game as the lost game of the old world champion Capablanca in Marshall -Capablanca Match 1909 Capablanca later on admited he would have played diferent from the game And that it was one of his worst games he ever played at the moment he already had a slidely worse postion he gave the coment 1 move was even worse then an other But the reason why he would have played diferent is again based on knowledge Did this game make him a bad player? The bad point is this rubbing because of results You don't show you actualy like chess In the ways of when lost learn from it many human machine games could help the programmers to improve this But even when you won stay critical . Chess may be a war game But it is an acient war game Then wars where faught out with much codes of honor and classes. Marc
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.