Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:03:00 11/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2003 at 17:59:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >What is amazing is to watch a GM get into wild tactics vs a computer, and >win a piece. Then a few moves later, he loses a pawn. But he is still >winning. Then another pawn. And before you know it... I think people underestimate the computer's abilities because the computer doesn't play "GM chess" or "human chess". How often do you hear the GMs all talk about what a great lack of understanding the computer has. I wonder if the computer thinks the same thing about the GMs :-) I remember the story about a computer vs. human game where all of the spectating GMs agreed that a certain move was the best. The computer played something else to avoid a complicated mate that not a single GM saw. The GMs went on about how that showed that the computer didn't really understand. Imagine if things had been reversed, and the computer had punished any of those GMs for playing the "best" move. Long term strategies are supposed to be what the computer doesn't "understand". From a theoretical viewpoint, chess is not a strategic game, but a tactical one. Strategies are nothing more than the attempts of us humans to get a better grasp on something we really don't understand (IE we can't comprehend the concrete tactical lines that make a move better than others, while the computer can). If a computer can search to the end of the game, all strategies go out the window. I wonder if the computers have the stigma of not understanding because they don't understand what us humans have created to supplement our lack of understanding ;-) In other words, I wonder if the humans mocking the computer's lack of understanding would be similar to the indians mocking the white men because they didn't *even* have bows and arrows.
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.