Author: Michael Neish
Date: 00:04:53 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2000 at 15:49:48, C Morris wrote: >Quoting from pg. 289 of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", David Bronstein says "I >think computers have simply exposed man and shown that he has become conceited. >Grandmasters are convinced that they know how to play chess. But is this really >so?" Profound insight from a great world class chessplayer. Actually, I'm not sure what he means. The best humans still beat the best computers. In what way have computers demonstrated that humans don't know how to play? Well, okay, now that I think about it, there are certain endgames which have been solved by computers I suppose. But where computers normally triumph it's only because a tactical oversight by the human, i.e., not because the computer knows something the human doesn't, but because the human has limited capability to see all the tactical complications in a limited amount of time. This piques my curiosity. Does anyone have an example of a computer winning against a strong human opponent because of superior understanding, and not just tactical prowess? Maybe the DB-Kasparov games are the place to look. Maybe it's hard to find these games, even if they exist. How do you distinguish between understanding and deep tactics? Cheers, Mike.
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.