Author: stuart taylor
Date: 05:31:00 06/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
I didn't say a person can learn independence by relying on machine! But maybe because you know NOT to rely on the machine, but can nevertheless be very provoked into thinking, by the comments of the machine. Also, machines are available when you are. And, regarding being helped, the major help would be in engaging the persons whole mind and encouraging a person to use his whole mind and thus strengthen his brain cells (therepeutically) at the same time. Yes, I would like that. S.Taylor On June 12, 2003 at 03:07:45, margolies,marc wrote: >dear stu, >I don't think your imagination is wandering. But I do think your explanation >went for a small walk. >Here's the rub: if a player cannot find stimulation from a chess position yet >requires the "crutch" of hortatory remarks from his computer opponent to finish >a game well, then while he may be thinking, yet not thinking "independently." So >it's not good for Chess character (at least in my opinion) >I shall never damn anyone for needing help of cousre. I need plenty too. The >strength I think comes in the honesty of reaconing directly with that. But to >say some one is more indepedent because they rely on a machine instead of humans >-- gosh I dunno. half a dozen of one or the other! >best to ya, marc > >On June 11, 2003 at 20:21:05, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On June 11, 2003 at 15:11:17, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>stu, >>> on reflection, I recall that you can toggle vebal commentary-- what you call >>>smart chatter-- as an insertion into analysis when running the fritz analysis >>>module. there are about I guess 300 different text messages the prog can use >>>like 'strengthening square d5' I think this is what you are looking for. >>>the fritzy wont do this in real time while you play-- it's an analysis option. >>> >>>it should not become a playing mode i think,'coach' is enough! we dont need the >>>machine to do our thinking for us when we play that's too lazy for me! >>> >>>Also if you need to see how the machine might answer it's own moves there is >>>'shoot-out' mode to follow a variation. >>> >>>PS the main reason I will never use vebal commentary in engine analysis, when >>>the computer 'sounds too human' it becomes very credible -- and I know fritz >>>often misses important strategic plan when analyzing. This is clear to me >>>because I will show my games to strong IM here in New York (tournament games) >>>and when I have time to run Fritz overnight,say, on a game first ..sure it will >>>show me my blunders ,BUT if I miss an important PLAN (so necessary for LEARNING >>>how to play) I rarely see any insight from A chessbase analytical product. >>> >>>Maybe that's the recomendation CB needs?? >>>bye, marc >> >>Obviously one problem might be that there ARE not many insights. >>If it could say thing things like "what you just did exchanges an important >>piece for a less important piece", and why that is, then I think that would be a >>high enough concept to get me extremely involved in a game. And things like >>"beware on the light squares" etc. Even things like "a King side attack is/isn't >>now a wise/viable consideration" (with reasons too!). >> DURING a game? Well, if it mentions strategic aims, and it is for you to work >>out how to do them, that might be quite engaging. Later on in analysing you can >>see if and how the program itself does what it preached. >>If Fritz sounds too human, you can learn to argue with it by trying to see if >>they are wrong etc. You can then develope great independence in thinking! (Am I >>imagining?) >>Also, at any time that the machine changes its mind after seeing deeper (e.g. >>after 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 4 minutes.......) the chatter has to say so, and >>to say what it thinks now. So you will also be used to imagining that it might >>change its mind anyway. >>S.Taylor
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.