Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 13:05:32 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 15:38:30, Peter Berger wrote: >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). Computers do not understand anything until they reach a tablebase endgame :) > >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.