25 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by rbmorrisRec'd
Interesting article by Garry Kasparov, just published in the New York Times.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592
Garry Kasparov The Chess Master and the Computer
2:2
The heavy use of computer analysis has pushed the game itself in new directions.
The machine doesn't care about style or patterns or hundreds of years of established theory.
It counts up the values of the chess pieces, analyzes a few
billion moves, and counts them up again. (A computer translates each piece and each
positional factor into a value in order to reduce the game to numbers it can crunch.)
It is entirely free of prejudice and doctrine and this has contributed to the
development of players who are almost as free of dogma as the machines with which
they train. Increasingly, a move isn't good or bad because it looks that way or
because it hasn't been done that way before. It's simply good if it works and bad if it
doesn't. Although we still require a strong measure of intuition and logic to play well,
humans today are starting to play more like computers.
Very much worth reading.
-GIN
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by NowakowskiI just purchased IM John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" and "Modern Chess Strategy In Action", which discuss and promote this very idea. Very compelling!
Rec'd
Garry Kasparov The Chess Master and the Computer
2:2
The heavy use of computer analysis has pushed the game itself in new directions.
The machine doesn't care about style or patterns or hundreds of years of established theory. It counts up the values of the chess pieces, analyzes a few
billion moves, and counts them up again. (A ...[text shortened]... re starting to play more like computers.
Very much worth reading.
-GIN
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by NowakowskiALL UR MOV35 R BELNG 2 U5
Rec'd
Garry Kasparov The Chess Master and the Computer
2:2
The heavy use of computer analysis has pushed the game itself in new directions.
The machine doesn't care about style or patterns or hundreds of years of established theory.
It counts up the values of the chess pieces, analyzes a few
billion moves, and counts them up again. ( ...[text shortened]... re starting to play more like computers.
Very much worth reading.
-GIN
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by rbmorrisVery interesting article, thanks for the tip-off.
Interesting article by Garry Kasparov, just published in the New York Times.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592
If Kasparov actually wrote any of that I'll eat my (and anybody else's) computer - it doesn't read like his voice at all and I just don't believe he knows all that stuff. Still, that doesn't stop it being fascinating.
Was the specific reference to an online chess site really necessary? Does that help us with who the actual author was.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonGet ready to swallow:
Very interesting article, thanks for the tip-off.
If Kasparov actually wrote any of that I'll eat my (and anybody else's) computer - it doesn't read like his voice at all and I just don't believe he knows all that stuff. Still, that doesn't stop it being fascinating.
Was the specific reference to an online chess site really necessary? Does that help us with who the actual author was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/gary-kasparov-on-chess-me_n_432043.html
http://myprops.org/content/Garry-Kasparov-On-Chess-Metaphors-The-Chess-Master-And-The-Computer/
http://www.silobreaker.com/garry-kasparov-11_995085
(where you can see multiple links to the article - hosted on multiple sites)
Seems to me, that even when you search Google for "Kasparov on Chess Metaphors"
you'll find this article, over, and over, and over again...always written by the same
ex World Champion.
-GIN
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe freaked out because the computer refused the sacrifice he offered, something that was unusual at the time. The same so called human moves are found by today's computers. He was just an embarassed sore loser.
yes under mysterious circumstances, computers making human style moves etc
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42yes he freaked out, wouldn't you! here the machine is a greedy materialist and it refuses your material? and as Jason states, they never released the data sheets and ol Joel Benjamin overseeing everything, mmm, vewy vewy intewesting Mr.Bond!
He freaked out because the computer refused the sacrifice he offered, something that was unusual at the time. The same so called human moves are found by today's computers. He was just an embarassed sore loser.