Author: Francisco J. P.
Date: 11:15:54 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
I want to repeat my thought on this whole subject of the opening books. Let's see, humans also make moves constantly without 'thinking them'. They're not doing all the time theoretical studies on their next move in the opening theme. If they would do that, they'll use a lot more time on the first moves, and that's not right: they move their pieces almost instantly. They rely on their own database (their memory, telling them, remember that day one you felt so great cause that move was good... Their filters are their feelings. They're not thinking, creating, all the time... at least in the opening. It would be a waste of valuable time). Speaking of moves that are done automatically. Let's speak of the complex of the tactical chess. On this subject computers are seen as strong (people say indeed that their play is based only on this). In today chess world, I can't imagine a top player that doesn't use his/her computer to help them. I repeat what I've said on the previous post: humans have the ability to understand and create concepts but, once they created them, they have a limited memory so they can't store in his head the whole 'analysis session' (hours), the whole thinking that created their inspiration, which is very deep. So they store feelings and retrieve them on certain situations: remember that day one you feel so great cause you created that, or you saw that move was... and they play it. And what is worse, they can't store all the variations chess has (it has a lot, and human memory is limited). I'm speaking of tactics: though humans can see them, how many times do you think a human says a move is good or bad based on a computer? I would say a lot of times: cause if humans would have to be thinking all the time the reasons of that move being a bad one they would lose a lot of time. (I'm speaking tactically) So humans get help of computers to keep their memory fresh, so they can have a very deep chess knowledge. At least tactically. And they don't have to be losing time analysing each move. The difference is that humans could jump to the conclusions that- one day, on a 'learning session'- made them do that move. But they can't do that always, on a normal game. They would lose a lot of time. Humans can create, they are creative. But they don't do that always. They create one time and keep on their memory the sensation that that move is good. Of course they can create on a game (and they do it of course), but not on the opening. Computers can't create but they analyse very deeply. So we can say computers take for granted the possitional knowledge each opening has (thanks to humans), and humans (a lot of times) take for granted the tactical nuances one certain move has basing on computers. They could jump to the same conclusion but they can't waste their memory on that, cause it is limited... and there are a lot of new concepts to be created in chess that require it. Humans doesn't understand certain moves neither, at least in the opening, on a normal game. They access to their own database too. Of course they have the ability to understand always the inherent concepts of the movements they do, but it would be a waste of valuable time.
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.