Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 02:26:57 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 17:59:12, Bob Durrett wrote: > >What would happen if Kasparov were to follow Botvinnik's footsteps and become >genuinely interested in improving computer chess? > >What if: > >(1) Professor Hyatt and a team of the top chess engine programmers were to give >Kasparov an intensive short course [24 hours per day for 6 months] in chess >engine programming and Kasparov were to become addicted to chess engine design? > >(2) Kasparov were to then become pro-active in trying to help the chess engine >programmers to improve their chess engines? > >Generally, it has already been established here that relatively weak >chessplayers can produce strong chess engines. But what could Kasparov, in >partnership with the likes of Hyatt, produce? > >Maybe the recent mistakes made by Fritz and Junior would not happen anymore. > >What do you think? > >Bob D. It would probably help, a bit. In his book Behind Deep Blue, Hsu attributes a lot of the improvement in Deep Blue to it 'going' to (Joel) Benajmin's chess school. However, we also need to remember that many Grandmasters mis-evaluate some positions based on fear, optimism or previous learning. One recent example is the last game (Game 3) of Deep Junior vs Kasparov, where according to the experts Junior was toast from around move ten or so, until it won - although it should have been a draw. It is pretty obvious that chess is tactics. The extent to which human style rules of thumb (strategy, positional knowledge) that predict approximately the outcome of uncalcuable move sequences continue to dominate chess is of interest to me, particularly the point at which the machines inferior knowledge plus calculating ability outweighs the human approach - on average. Frank
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.