Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 02:48:10 04/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 09:14:04, Francisco J. P. wrote: >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... Hello, Francisco I understand your point. I disagree. Once a human learns something he does not have to learn it again and again. If he understands the moves he plays then he can play them quickly. He does not need to think about why they are good. He already knows. Of course, There is a very good chance that he is wrong in his evaluation of these moves. In this case he will suffer for his poor understanding of the game. Computers are not made to pay for their lack of chess understanding in the same way. Regards Tony
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.