Author: odell hall
Date: 21:33:05 10/05/98
Hi I realize that some may view this question to be rediculous, however I ask it anyway in hopes of fueling some interesting debate. My extreme fascination with chess and specifically Chess Masters began about 15 years ago, ofcourse at that time computer programs were not very strong. For years I wanted very badly to be able to play against a Chess Master but this was often impossible because there were not many masters living in our area (kansas, oklahoma). When I realized that That technology had developed the means to produce "Artificial Masters" I was overwelmed with JOY!!. However to this very day this joy is mixed with a deep down suspicion that perhaps What I am getting is not a "real Master" at all. This doubt was originally fueled by an article i read in computer chess reports back in 1994, Where someone Stated that computers are not real Masters in the True sense of the word.(Whatever that means!). Also a couple of months ago I asked our states strongest player(2317) If he thought that computer programs are playing Master Level Chess. The Master stated that no they are not!! According to the Master Computer programs play a completley different type of Chess that is different than what humans play. To be honest this explanation is a little confusing to me. In my opinion Chess is Chess, there is strategy, and tactics. It is irrelevant how a person or machine arrives at the move that it makes as long as the end result produces the win. So what does it matter how a machine plays chess as long as it is produces good results. Using this logic, My view is that a Master is one who produced Master level results. Playing style being of no consequense. Is my view point valid? How many agree?
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.