Author: Howard Exner
Date: 06:49:01 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2000 at 03:04:53, Michael Neish wrote: >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. Bronstein's response was an excerpt from the interviewer's, Sergey Voronkov, question, "Not long ago an interview from our journal, Victor Korchnoi expressed the view that computers would defeat human chess players before the end of the century. Will that mean the end of chess?" So in this context he replied that this would eventually happen saying, "I do not want to hide my head in the sand like an ostrich." My read on Bronstein to this question was perhaps chess programs have reawakened in us the need to improvise. To pull us out of our complacency. He in his carreer was such an innovater over the board. The interview continues with Bronstein's thoughts on how computers play chess as well as his views on other chess topics. >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? That's a question that for me is getting fuzzier. Traditionally chess knowledge was described as road signs that help the driver predict what will show up on the road without actually seeing it. So in practical chess terms something like, "if I move this pawn forward my bishop will be locked in and out of play", so no calculation required. Deep tactics could resolve this too, but there are cases where this would have to be extremely deep. > >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.