Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:00:03 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 13:20:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. I believe that depth is all that matters. Computer analysis must be scrutinized very carefully though, because of the null-move heuristic blind-side. But if we can see forward 20 plies or 40 plies or whatever accurately, it does not matter where it came from. I think using both is of greatest value. What I mean is, we have hundreds of years of human brainpower thrown at solving what are the best openings. If we combine all the ideas generated by humans with all the ideas generated by computers and carefully test both out, we can arrive at a true optimum.
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.