Author: James Robertson
Date: 01:38:29 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 00:27:12, blass uri wrote: >On July 13, 2000 at 23:17:29, James Robertson wrote: > >>On July 13, 2000 at 09:31:37, ujecrh wrote: >> >>>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? >>> >>>This is probably hard to predict because, even if no anti-computer technique >>>would be used, it would also avoid situations when the GM is simply psyched out >>>because he knows he is playing a computer. >> >>At least at Dortmund, only Kramnik used anti-computer play. Bareev threw away a >>pawn in a move designed to "confuse" the computer that he knew would never >>confuse a human. It is quite possible DJ's performance would not go up at all >>(at least in this event) if the players did not know they were playing a >>computer. >> >>James > >Adams used anti-computer play. I do not agree that Adams used anti-computer play. It was merely a game that entered the endgame quickly. James >I read that the way that adams could win Junior in blitz in the same opening but >Junior played better at tournament time control so he could not win. > >Uri >> >>> >>>Ujecrh
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.