Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:08:56 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 20:19:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 21, 2004 at 19:51:39, Pierre Bourget wrote: > >>On June 21, 2004 at 19:36:29, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I don't think man could solve it at the board either with today time control. >> >>Pierre > >Not relevant. >Which computer can solve it if you give it 24 hours? It is still not a correct statement, computers have solved many positions that humans have been wrong about for many years. Computer EGTB are one example were computers have beamed a brite light onto the chess board. > >Uri
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.