Author: Francisco J. P.
Date: 06:14:04 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
First of all I apologize for my bad English that doesn't let me express my thoughts the way I would like. Well, let's say it this way: If one human would have to jump to the ultimate theoretical conclusion that makes him play one variation instead of another EACH GAME he plays: he would need a lot of more time to play the first moves. Instead of that we see that the first moves on the openings are always played rapidly cause the human knows what move to play cause he remembers one time when he jumped to the conclusion of: this move is better cause... but he doesn't do this all the time he plays, EACH GAME.--> I don't know if I can explain this correctly in English... Let's say that you read a book of theory of the chess openings, and one afternoon you use 10 hours for a deep analysis to 'understand' some deep concept that explains the reason to do that concrete move ultimately instead of other. And you do that with a lot of positions that can be achieved in chess, and portray that example to one professional player (GM) who has to know a lot more... Well, the player, in one time or another had to 'learn' that opening and he knew it was good (and for this he annotates it on his notebook), but he doesn't jump to the ultimate theoretical concept, a deep analysis that tells him the 'why' EACH game he play... it would cost him hours and hours... So my point here is that, in a way, humans use his memory to store the moves when they remembered that... (something alike of the computers database). So it would be unfair to let the computers without that possibility and that they have to 'think' the correct move EACH GAME, cause that's something the humans doesn't do. I don't know if my point can be understood. Regards...
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.