Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 05:59:38 01/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2001 at 22:11:41, Pete Galati wrote: >The problem with this arguement that keeps coming up, is that they are >distinctly different (GMs and computer programs). It's getting to the point >where PC programs are giving GMs a real run for the money, but even IF they get >to the point where strong GMs can no longer compete with the stronger programs, >they're still going to be different beasts. > >So in some respects, I think we could posibly also be asking, have GMs become as >good as computer Chess programs, because in some catagories, I think the >programs are clearly ahead (trolling tendancy getting the better of me) that >being tactics, consistency, not tiring, not being influenced by any emotion. >But, they don't have a good an ability to plan and think way ahead, they also >have difficulty with sacrifices. Well said, Pete. That is something that so easily forgotten, making strength comparison and strength allocation based on ordinary games dubious and more recreational in nature. Computer chess programs and human beings have virtually nothing in common when it comes to playing chess. The possibility of exchanging knowledge and improving each others games exist and that is the most interesting part IMO. Giving titles away, however, isn't. In fact it's boring and contrafactual at best. Mogens.
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.