Author: blass uri
Date: 09:17:32 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 11:14:07, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 16, 2000 at 16:26:07, Olaf Jenkner wrote: > >Hi, > >I don't think you are a computer hater, but instead you take the bull by the >horns: A chess program will never be of GM strenght as long as the main >weaknesses aren't solved. Like f.e. blocked positions or king's attacks. I disagree. The results is relevant. It is not easy to get the right position to get a king attack. Only 2 players won Deep Junior and I believe that they are not the only players who tried to get king attack. I read in chesskasparov site that Junior could avoid the problem against piket by 8.h4 and if 8...h6 9.e6 The difference between the scores of 8.h4 and the move that was played is small(at least for Junior5.9) and it is possible that Junior could find h4 with better hardware. piket could not be sure that he will win before the game because he could not be sure that Junior will not find 8.h4. If the definition of GM strength includes to play weaker than 1800 players in some positins than I guess that computer without GM strengh can get 3000 rating in the future because even if they understand the stonewall and do not understand fortress positions they will not be GM strength by your definition. Uri
This page took 0.03 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.