Author: Dana Turnmire
Date: 02:39:12 09/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2003 at 05:19:33, Uwe Meißner wrote: >On September 11, 2003 at 04:43:54, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >>From "The Mammouth Book of Chess" page 433. >> >>"...the human uses the computer to check over analysis he has done, and to reach >>a verdict on random tactics. It's a tool. As computers get better and better, >>such occurrances as this (finding mate in 9 etc.) will become more common, and >>both players will be guided away from such perils by their machines, until >>eventually there is no way out for one side or the other. Since so many of the >>moves were chosen by excluding moves for reasons other than human preference, it >>will become impossible for a player to explain why he won a game, or for the >>loser to understand why he lost. They can perhaps point to the strategy they >>employed, but it will really have been some random assisted tactical >>implementations of the two players' strategies that have decided matters. >>Looking at it in terms of the humans versus computers discussion, for a while >>the game will have been drifting around inside the 20% of positions in which >>humans are better than computers, or the 60% no-man's land where it isn't clear >>who handles the position better. However, should the game drift into the 20% of >>positions that computers handle far better than humans, then that is the end of >>the human involvement in the game. The two computers are effectively battling >>it out from then on." >> >>"Obviously, as the percentages get slanted more in favour of the computers, the >>point at which it is the two computers locked in battle will become more >>frequent, and occur earlier in the game." >> >>"Perhaps a ban on the use of computers in championship events could to some >>extent be enforced by requiring players to be able to explain, if called upon by >>the official bodies, how they happened to find any really strong >>counter-intuitive moves. This would be the equivalent of the drug test in >>athletics." > >Interesting stuff, but the context is not quite clear to me. Are they speaking >about correspondence chess or some sort of Advanced Chess a la Kasparow? >I think good players will always be able to explain post mortem what did happen >on the board; it's only a matter of time and work. >Nevertheless there are some tricky endings (you can find in tablebases), that >have 100-200 moves, where it seems impossible to explain the meaning of each >single move. But also this is only a matter of time and motivation. In natural >sciences there are much more complicated questions, which already have been >solved even without computers. >> >Uwe The Author FM Graham Burgess states "One of the most perceptive commentaries on the subject of computer-aided correspondence play was made by Peter Sowray (I present his arguments here with very considerable embellishments of my own), a strong over-the-board player who has also played a good deal of high-level correspondence chess. His view of the current situation is that the human uses the computer to check over analysis he has done, and to reach a verdict on random tactics."
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.