Author: José Carlos
Date: 03:53:39 10/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1999 at 02:21:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On October 22, 1999 at 23:34:02, walter irvin wrote: > >>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 . > >You'd beat such a thing by giving it a long-term positional weakness and kicking >it as hard as you could. Eventually the thing would see that it is going to >lose material, and it would fall over, vomit a few times, and die. > >Another way would be to get an obviously winning attack and let it play itself. > >Imagine you are going down a dead-end street that has no "dead end" sign. If >you can see a long ways, perhaps you can see the end of the street, realize it >is a dead end, and turn around, before you get permanently stuck in there. > >But if the street is longer, you can't see the end. OK, so perhaps you learn to >see better, so you can see to the end of this one, but there are always longer >dead-end streets. > >A strength of the GM player is the ability to identify nasty dead-end streets. > >bruce Hi Bruce, According to my experience in chess world, there aren't many of those long streets. Millions of different ways can take you to completely different positions. Even if you can fix a permanent weakness (though I don't think a 30-ply program would allow it), and after some moves the program could see it's going to lose material (say a pawn), there should be so many different and complicated ways to go to there, that the program would very probably lead you to tactical territory, where you wouldn't have a chance. That's just my opinion... José C.
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.