Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 18:55:16 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 20:58:23, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On October 17, 2000 at 20:39:41, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>On October 17, 2000 at 20:23:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2000 at 19:51:05, Andrew Dados wrote: >>> >>>>On October 17, 2000 at 19:37:32, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>When two humans play an open game of chess specially for the World's >>>>>Title it is very exciting to watch. We have not seen too many of these open >>>>>games played since the era of Bobby fischer, which is probably the reason why >>>>>his games were full of fire. But if any of these two gladiators dare to play an >>>>>open game against any of the top leading programs such as Fritz and Chess Tiger >>>>>they would not have a chance to defeat these tactical monsters. >>>>>The only way to beat the best P.C chess programs is by playing the way that >>>>>Kramnik played against Deep Junior with opening like the Stone wall Defense, and >>>>>once P.C chess programs are programmed to handle closed openings like the Stone >>>>>Wall defense they will become unbeatable. >>>>> >>>>>Pichard. >>>> >>>>Your claims are baseless. Why do you keep posting those trolls? >>>>-Andrew- >>> >>>I post these messages because there are still people like you who do not seems >>>to know where the real strength of a computer program lies, unless you have been >>>hiden underneath a rock for the last five years, I would not waste my time >>>trying to explain to you from where am I making these assumptions, neither you >>>seems to be too knowledgeable to comprehend these issues. I am almost certain >>>that almost 60 % of the CCC readers would agree with me on this matter. >>> >>>Pichard. >> >>Since you seem much knowledgeable then me please give me some game examples when >>computers beat so clearly players of 2700+ strength (or even 2600+). Otherwise I >>will continue to see your claims as baseless. I saw quite a few open games from >>Israeli league or Rebel challenge or even Dortmund but didn't see computers >>dominate there so obviously as you want to see. >> >>-Andrew- > >These players were given plenty of time to prepare against all these programs >which were avaivable on the market for several months before the Israeli league >took part. I am pretty sure that if a player play against a new version of >either Rebel or Gambit Tiger and playing open games they would hardly win a >game. > >Pichard. That's why I responded to your post first time - You keep posting stuff with no merit. 'I am pretty sure' when based on lack of examples carries no message. So are your past messages. Try to back your oppinions with any evidence... but you don't post those messages to discuss (as you don't care to discuss with someone who disagrees - you stated that 2 posts above). So what's your point? But back to the topic. Computers *are* great calculators, but they misevaluate way too many positions still... Do you remember that one? [D]r2qk2r/1b3ppp/p2bp3/1pp1N3/3PPB2/P1P2Q2/5PPP/R3K2R w What score your super-duper programs show here? And yet Anand went for that position and won convincingly (yep, Anand was black). Another example is recent K-K when all programs had +2 to +4 and draw was agreed (it is still not clear where Kramnik made error if any). Both open games. Chess on 2700+ level is a bit deeper then 16 ply searches with minimal knowledge. That's my hint for you. -Andrew-
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.