Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 05:02:25 03/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 01:44:15, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >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. > Another new theory. Why don't you try to prove it with your usual statistics? Kasparov plays and analyzes day and night with computers and I guess he like you are able to learn something from it. Bertil >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.