Skip to main content
Tweeted twitter.com/StackChess/status/931422575036719109
added 144 characters in body
Source Link
Sejanus
  • 171
  • 5

Its seems to me nowadays computers simply play better, i.e. they consistently choose better moves. Where does human factor come into play, how can a human help engine to beat another engine?

Or was Kasparov simply wrong?

Edit: here's the podcast, most of it is politics, chess part is near the very end https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-putin-question

Its seems to me nowadays computers simply play better, i.e. they consistently choose better moves. Where does human factor come into play, how can a human help engine to beat another engine?

Or was Kasparov simply wrong?

Its seems to me nowadays computers simply play better, i.e. they consistently choose better moves. Where does human factor come into play, how can a human help engine to beat another engine?

Or was Kasparov simply wrong?

Edit: here's the podcast, most of it is politics, chess part is near the very end https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-putin-question

Source Link
Sejanus
  • 171
  • 5

Kasparov said human+computer beats just computer. What does human bring to the table in such teams?

Its seems to me nowadays computers simply play better, i.e. they consistently choose better moves. Where does human factor come into play, how can a human help engine to beat another engine?

Or was Kasparov simply wrong?