Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:20:12 09/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2005 at 05:05:08, Majd Al-Ansari wrote: >Take away the tactical prowess of computers, and they are helpless against even >an average IM. Of course if computers are not allowed to search forward and humans are allowed to search forward then humans have advantage. Even an average IM may calculate often more than 10 plies forward in the relevant lines. If you limit the search not to allow computers to search more than 10 plies forward then humans have unfair advantage and if you do not do it then it is not clear how do you take away the tactical prowess of computers. There is still tons to be learned from human chess. A move that >a GM would not even consider, might be played by even the strongest chess entity >in the world. A good example of that is Hydra vs. the correspondence chess >champ. I think that Nickel simply outsearched Hydra by analyzing deeper the relevant lines. It is no proof for human superiority in evaluation. Also the latest free-style tourney proved beyond a doubt that computers >are much weaker in evaluating positions. No games like that can at most prove that the team of human and computer is better than computer but the reason may be tactical superiority and not superiority in evaluation. So far computers have been able to >use their incredible tactical strength to more than cover-up their evaluation >weaknesses. A computer that has the ability to properly assess the end >positions of an evaluation at the level of a 2200 player will squash even the >most powerful chess computer. No proof for that theory. end evaluation of 2200 player are also not in numbers like 0.34 pawns so I do not see exactly how computers can use it. Uri
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.