Author: Daniel Jackson
Date: 00:40:03 06/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
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 For a human it's not to hard. The plan is to have the B control a5 and d8 sqaures protecting both Queen-Side and King-Side pawns and with excellet King position for White, Black can't make progress. Daniel
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.