Author: John Merlino
Date: 16:15:11 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 19:04:18, Joachim Rang wrote: >On June 21, 2004 at 17:47:34, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1718 > >too weak for what? Why not quote the whole statement: > >Machines are too weak to reach the ground of chess and give a final answer to >some unsolved questions in chess. > >One can only say, how true! > >regards Joachim Uh, that wasn't exactly what he said either. HERE is the whole quote, in the context of a portion of the full interview: ------------------ Spiegel Online: Are you a genius? Kramnik: I am pretty talented. Spiegel Online: Once again so modest. Kramnik: You know, sometimes I think I have understood a position, but after a couple of years I realize that I have understood nothing. That is what is so mysterious and fascinating about chess. You have a board with 64 squares, and it is so deep that not even ten Kramniks can know which is the best move. Sometimes you simply feel lost. You cannot feel the ground. Spiegel Online: Are you afraid of the depth? Kramnik: It is sometimes painful. You simply cannot reach the ground. This ground or call it final truth, if it exists at all, is not of humans. Spiegel Online: Will a machine ever be in a position to light up the darkness? Kramnik: I don’t think so. Not even the strongest computers even come close to the ground. Spiegel Online: What does the machines lack? Kramnik: The strongest computer, against which I played in October 2002, can examine four million positions per second. You can work out how many it plays through in six or seven minutes but they are too weak. Spiegel Online: But you still say that man are superior to the computer. Kramnik: Because man has intuition. He has this untouchable moment within himself. We may call it understanding. ------------------ jm
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.