Author: Peter Berger
Date: 12:38:30 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 15:27:17, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 14:32:07, Peter Berger wrote: > >>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 > >I think that things are dependent on the position. >There are openings that computers do not understand and may go wrong even after >analysis for a long time. Again a slight change in topic, and again I agree. From what I see the main weakness of computers in CC currently is the opening (and several rook endings, but this is another topic) . Computers don't understand many positions in the opening ( I will post some of my findings later). You helped the computer here (and it wasn't rocket science IMHO) but I really think this can be automated. Think about Yace's interesting ability to analyze backwards and to do a good job this way. Why should it need a human to do this? Yace 3.0 might know how to do this on itself.
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.