27 Sep 04
One fun way to learn: go to the Public Games listing or follow some links here in the forum and watch some of the more highly reputed players' games in fast-forward. And then when you come up with a question, figure out why. Or if you're like me, ask stupid questions here in the forums before you think anything through.
🙂
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungthat first article actually proves my point, and the second doesn't disagree with it.
This is not true as far as I know. Computers are about equal to humans, according to these articles:
http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/chess.htm
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1244
29 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by paultopiaI am not sure where you are getting that the first article proves your point. Just because a computer is simulating human behaviour doesn't mean it's not a computer, and that it's not matching the best humans at chess. It seems that the author's basic argument is that computers have nearly all the strengths of a human by simulating humans, yet they don't make mistakes, which humans do.
that first article actually proves my point, and the second doesn't disagree with it.
"That computers are our superior in some tasks, such as rapid math calculation and maybe Chess, should not be a surprise."
The second article's conclusion is "...top grandmasters and top chess computers are dead-even, and they have been stuck that way for some time. Neither side has actually won a match from the other in five years, and the last seven events between grandmasters rated 2700+ and chess computers have all been drawn."
Your point was that computers don't yet play as well as humans. How can you claim those articles don't disagree with you?
29 Sep 04
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat was not my point. My point was that pattern-recognition appears to be a major, if not overwhelming, determinant for chess strength.
Your point was that computers don't yet play as well as humans. How can you claim those articles don't disagree with you?
In support of that point, I cited as evidence the fact that the brute-force, math-problem-like calculating method of computers has proven inferior to humanity's lesser math skills but higher pattern recognition skills.
In opposition to that, you cited an article showing that computer programmers are adopting human-like pattern-recognition skills, and, in doing so, are producing superior play -- even when raw calculating ability is reduced.
That supports my actual point, which was that pattern recognition is more relevant to chess strength than raw calculation ability.
Gotta read the whole post to find the point, I'm afraid. :-)
29 Sep 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFair enough. Fortunately for me, the new, corrected, premise works better 😵
Semantics I guess. Your overall point in the post in question was what you are talking about. I took one of your premises and showed it was not correct, and that became the point I was debating.
It does seem that the articles do overall support your original, overall point.