Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 12:11:51 07/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2004 at 12:25:55, George Sobala wrote: >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. We tell which opening 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. Each team has a leader which has the final decision, however there are people specialized in things which opinion is seriously considered... Sandro
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.