Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 22:44:15 02/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
Kasparov, although the strongest human vs human player is very likely not the strongest human vs computer player. There may eventually arise a special category of human championships where the one with the best results against machines is the champion. Such champion may be only a weak human GM or even lower, but his style and a way of thinking may be just right for beating machines. From personal experience, my brother who is a master scores worse than I do against the current top micro programs, even though I was only an expert in human play (and that was over a decade ago; I haven't played in human competitions ever since, but only against the programs). And, of course, my brother beats me with ease. Despite my advice to him that he shouldn't think of a machine as a human opponent (with reasoning and common sense), and thus the apparently "deep" positional moves don't mean the machine understands what to do with them, once the battle is under way he still can't snap out of antropomorphizing the program. That seems to be a common trap for players unfamiliar with computer programming, and especially the chess programming. I think Kasparov has the same problem, as his comments on the "quantity turning into quality" and the "new kind of intelligence" in the article suggest.
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.