Author: Uwe Meißner
Date: 03:02:27 09/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2003 at 05:39:12, Dana Turnmire wrote: >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." Thanks for further information. One should also consider the fact, that Peter Sowray wrote these words some years ago (I suppose 1996 or something like this), and the progress in computer chess has even invreased since then. These are good reasons for the German experiment, which is to start on 1st of October (see above, my answer to Uri Blass). By the way: Does anybody know, which still existing cc federation in the world does ban computers? Uwe
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.