Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:20:54 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 12:42:08, Jay Scott wrote: > >On June 21, 1999 at 16:49:47, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>If it does not come up with "normal" variations, it indicates that the computer >>assessment differs greatly from the human assessment. Given that the human >>assessment is based on a ton of experience, if a clear tactical bust isn't >>present, human experience is more likely to be correct than the machine >>analysis. > >Human and computer players have different strengths. So it may be that >the human analysis is superior for human use and the computer analysis >is superior for computer use. > > Jay The end use of both is to play the best possible chess. Convergence of opinions is expected and normal. I said more likely... it certainly isn't always. But a resolution encompassing both of the analyses should be made. Dave
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.