Author: walter irvin
Date: 20:34:02 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1999 at 21:44:56, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >Computer microprocessors are not able to conceptualize. When that happens your >will see good play. My pet dog is better than all the worlds' computers at >conceptualization. Planning for advance events requires a brain, especially if >you have an opponent who has a brain. Would a computer know what I am saying >now and would it reply intelligently? A computer would not see the humor in >this post in the first place. That requires a fully-functioning brain that is >capable of interpreting minute differences in meaning. That is also the reason >why the superpowers don't rely solely on computers to launch missiles as a part >of their nuclear deterrence. > >Guys like Hyatt, Schroder and Hirsch are pretty clever but until they have >processors that can conceptualize they will only "approximate" a grandmaster >level of chess play. Adjuncts like tablebases and opening books will certainly >elevate the level of play. Rapid analysis ply searches can only take you so >far. > >I think that the level of play of todays programs is fantastic and most will >outplay most of the members at CCC. That does not mean that they can beat our >best human players. That day will probably be here within ten years. > >Tim Frohlick i think computers can play at and beyond gm level . if a computer is fast enough then who is to say where tactics end and strategy begins .i mean if a program could hit 25 to 30 ply what chance would anyone have?????? all a computer needs to see is the end result before the human can see it .
This page took 0.01 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.