Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:12:37 03/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 08:51:43, emerson tan wrote: >When computers beat all humans, the interest will wane for computers versus >humans. It will be hard to get sponsors. The only way to keep it interesting is >to change the rules in favor of humans. > >One rule is to allow the humans to move the pieces on the board so as to avoid >visualization blunders like what happened to Kramnik vs Deep Fritz and Kasparov >vs Deep Junior. It will also be lest tiring and less lack of confidence for >humans if they can move the pieces several moves deep until they are confident >of their position. It is not interesting if humans lose due to visualization >blunders,under perform due to tiredness or take the draw because of lack of >confidence thinking that they will blunder along the way against an opponent >that will not blunder even in time pressure. Imagine if humans will be allowed >to move the pieces, they will have confidence that they will enter complications >and play with the computers head on, the position will become more dynamic that >we will have more decisive games. Kasparov might have played on in game 5 if he >was allowed to move the pieces. We will have more quality games to replay. > >With the proposal, it will be the calculating ability of the computer versus >the judgment and intuition of the humans, not the calculating ability of >computers versus human’s tendency to blunder, get tired or lose confidence. > >Another good thing about humans being allowed to move the pieces is that it will >be more interesting for the TV because you can see what the Grandmasters are >thinking. Its much easier to sponsor if its fitted for TV. > >Maybe giving the humans 2 ½ /hour versus 2 /hour for computers can be suggested >for the time to move the pieces and move it back to original position. > >What do you think? I think that you underestimate humans ability to visualize positions. One of the world champions(alechine) said that in one game it is not important for him if he see the board. I read that Judit polgar beated a master without seeing the board 10-0 or 9-1(I am not sure about the exact result). My opinion about the matches of kramnik and kasparov is that in one of the cases the human lost on purpose and that in another case the human did tactical mistakes because of time trouble and not because lack of ability to visualize the board. 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.