Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:32:07 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 14:10:26, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 13:08:01, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 11, 2003 at 05:56:08, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On March 10, 2003 at 13:44:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On March 10, 2003 at 12:17:36, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>I did not look at the games but using a computer does not mean to play >>>>computer moves. >>>> >>>>Computers can be used for analysis of positions that is not on the board >>>>and I think that giving computer hours to analyze when you sleep may give more >>>>information so it is better than nothing. >>>> >>>>I tend to believe that the top players do everything to help them and it >>>>includes using computers. >>>> >>> >>>I agree - it seems corresponcence chess is a dying sport. In maybe 10 years due >>>to advances in hardware (and software, too) chessprograms will be virtually >>>unbeatable. At this time top level correspondence chess will most likely be a >>>battle of clever computer operators. > >Humans with the help of computers (not vice versa) will be clearly stronger than >all computerprograms in 10 years too. >Do you understand anything about Analysing with a computer? >Do you know how deep one can get in a typical middlegame position? >Especially if you know from experience which moves the computer oppponents >prefer. >Do you know what ply 20,30,40 really means? >I hope so, but I have doubts when I read your statements. >Artificial intelligence or Quantum computers are "necessary" to play (almost for >AI) perfect chess. Not in the next 10 years of course. > >Michael > Yes, I think I do understand all of the above ;) - and I disagree. Peter
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.