Author: Pete R.
Date: 09:43:50 07/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2000 at 23:53:10, Victor Valenzia wrote: >How do you think that today’s best players would fare if they did NOT know that >they were playing against a computer? Suppose, for the sake of argument, they >were only told that they were playing against a very formidable opponent. >Let’s take a top program on super hardware (i.e. Deep Junior in Dortmund). The >operator would somehow have the moves transmitted to him, perhaps by a tiny >earpiece. Without the “anti-computer” strategy, how do you think that the top >players in the world would fare in this scenario? What do you think the >hardware’s ELO would be in this case? > >Let’s take it a step further. Suppose we could take our super hardware back in >time and pit it against Fischer, Alekhine, and Capablanca, all of whom had no >experience playing against computers? What do you think the results would be? >I might be wrong, but my opinion is that the computer would defeat most of the >great players from the past. What do you think? > >Victor I have asked this same question, and in my belief the computer performance would be much stronger. The main advantage of the human is that he possesses real intelligence, and so can play against the weaknesses of his opponent instead of just playing to the best of his own ability. If a tournament were organized where the players did not know their opponent for each game, playing anticomputer chess would obviously be a bad strategy. If the opponents knew that one of the players was a computer, or assumed as much, they might still attempt to create blocked positions, so it might never be a perfect test. But certainly knowing that your opponent has particular blindspots is a huge advantage, more so than simply knowing what his favorite lines are.
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.