Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 16:45:09 06/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1999 at 19:03:16, Francis Monkman wrote: > >On June 14, 1999 at 18:56:06, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>What is the point of your post? I don't understand what message are you trying >>to bring up. What is Nunn trying to say in his annotation? Is the move 16. Rf1 a >>very good move or a very bad move? > >The point of posting this game is to remind (if necessary) that chess is about >more than >'strongest move versus strongest move", ie ping-pong. Chess is fundamentally >about ideas, and although computers are very good at 'getting the idea' when >it's there to be got, they are not so good at creating the conditions. I think >you'll find that most/all programs are as amazed by this game, as John Nunn was. >His point about move 16. Rf1, is that although it turns out to be best (leaving >Black with just slight advantage), any player (and I would add human or >computer) would have had to be very far-sighted in order to choose it. > >Francis That's why opening books exist for both humans and computers. Why bother re-invent the wheel if all the information is available? I would disagree with you when you say that computers are not yet able to create conditions, it all depends on the type of position. I find that Fritz 5 is very good in creating conditions in open games, and I yet would like to see any human GM outplay Fritz in an open game. Of course, the human GM would use anti-computer tactics, that is, closed position with long range planning to outplay the computer. It is how one uses the tool or weapon which wins the game, not the weapon itself. Laurence
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.