Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:49:38 02/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 1999 at 10:46:34, Matt Frank wrote: >On February 03, 1999 at 00:56:54, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Padon my ignorance on the subject, but aren't the GM's free to ignore the >>computer's advice if they know better? If so, I do not see how the computers >>could make them play worse. E.g. they play a gambit and the computer says >>"ce=-1" they just ignore it. > >Dann you are correct, the computer should help make the games better, and the >humans of course can ignore the plans the computer "suggests". However, for >these particular games (top. vs k, advanced match) there were particular >instances when each player would have been better off if they (a) had ignored >the computer or (b) been under normal tournament conditions (without a comp.) >and had developed a position using their (the humans') typical skills. However, >I agree totally, that once human playuers LEARN HOW TO INTEGRATE COMUTERS INTO >THEIR CONTEMPORANEOUS PLAY then we can expect to see truly significant >improvements in chess theory as revealed by the actual play over the board Improvements in theory? Not significantly or at all. Will theoretical novelties in certain positions be found? Probably. Getting games with fewer or more minimal errors? Probably. But these results do not really advance chess theory. It just explores positions that may not have been explored before. But that happens anyway in all types of chess (OTB, correspondence, blitz). If a higher quality of chess would result in improvements in theory, then I would contend that correspondence chess would be the best mechanism for advancing theory. Using a computer to advance endgame theory by exhaustively searching the endgame positions is possible and has been done, but not in an advanced chess setting. There are endings which used to be considered draws and are now wins and vice versa, etc. An example of advancing opening theory is one in which a major variation would be refuted, but you will probably never see that in advanced chess either. I view advanced chess as a novelty (i.e. a sideshow attraction) which I hope will die off. I think the superGMs are looking for ways to break the "monotony" (i.e the apparent sameness) without resorting to random chess. Advanced chess is kind of strange since with two equal players and computers, the most common result should be a draw (due to lack of significant errors) and what fun is that? Boring. It takes part of the human fraility and ability to make mistakes element out of the game and makes it dry and stale. No longer a competition, but rather a cooperation between 2 humans and 2 computers to make a "work of art" (i.e. no blunder) type of draw. Bogus. KarinsDad :) > (I >think Kasparov already thinks that computers have allowed him to do this). >Kasparov in his interview after his last tournament a week ago specifically said >that computers have helped him develop confidence in his theoretical probes >prior to the tourney. Yet Kasparov lost a game on time in the advanced match >when he relied too heavily on the computer near the end. This reflects a human >failure to integrate the resources that the machine provided. My point is that >humans still haven't learned how to use the resources for the maximum affect, >and maybe the time controls sholuld be normal tourney ones, too when playing >advanced matches. > >Matt Frank
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.