Author: George Sobala
Date: 09:25:55 07/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2004 at 01:50:12, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >Still I understant this is all the owners can do. I am not criticizing this, but >want to remember that there is available a stronger version, so the gap, if any, >is lower. > > >Sandro I do realise that most major computer tournaments such as WCCC and man-machine matches are played this way, with a programmer or team fine-tuning the computer, especially the book, from game to game. But to me it is an interesting philosophical question: is the human team behind the engine, which chooses which openings to play, merely like the seconds who help top players through e.g. World Championship matches, or are they more than this: does this team become more like a centaur, a computer-human fusion? I would argue that it is really a type of centaur. Kramnik's second will not *tell* him which openings to play against Leko, he will merely assist him with his preparation. Whereas in a tournament you *tell* Shredder which openings it can play. I know you try to guide it into openings you think it plays well, but it does not actually get a vote in the decision. This is a qualitative difference between what you do and what a second does.
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.