Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:05:10 09/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2005 at 09:17:09, Torstein Hall wrote: >On September 02, 2005 at 05:20:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >The word relevant lines is quite revealing. If Nicel searches deeper in the >relevant lines than Hydra, then it must have something to learn from humans. To >search the relevant lines you need to evaluate what is relevant in the posision >correctly. > >Torstein I do not claim that humans are not better than computers in nothing The point is that I do not think that their advantage is in their ability to properly give number scores to the leaf positions and the poster wrote the following also in his post: "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." 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.