Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 16:36:29 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 19:15:11, John Merlino wrote: >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 okay right, one might interprete differently. In my understanding he said, that computers are to weak to light up the darkness of chess understanding which one might describe as "solving" chess. It was not about OTB-Performance, where machined obviously are not weak but equal to the world class (and soon stronger probably). To give you an example: [D]8/8/p4Bp1/1pPb2P1/1P2kp2/P7/5K2/8 w - - 0 1 which computer can light the darkness on that position and tell you that the only move to draw is c6? No computer can do it today, but man can (and could) do it. regards Joachim
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.