Author: blass uri
Date: 06:58:41 10/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1998 at 09:03:14, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >On October 06, 1998 at 00:37:24, John Coffey wrote: > >>On October 06, 1998 at 00:33:05, odell hall wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> >>The discrepency between the way computers and humans play chess is not as >>great as it used to be. Modern day programs have a better positional feel >>and can see deep enough to get some planning. >> >>The question should not be if they are masters, but if they are IM's or GM's. >>I suspect that Fritz 5 would beat any mere NM. >> >>John Coffey > >Hi, >programs seem to have problems in many areas. I agree but IM's and GM's also have problems in many areas Uri
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.