Author: James T. Walker
Date: 08:36:31 06/22/04
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 I find it interesting that Kramnik has the same "Illusion" that Kasparov has/had. He (Kasparov) thought that he would never lose to a computer because of his "intuition" which the computer does not have. He didn't seem to understand that pure logic and multi-million NPS calculation can overcome this supposed intuition. Intuition is simply an educated guess based on past experience and a "feeling". When correct it's brilliant. When wrong it's just another blunder. Jim
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.