Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:32:53 07/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 16:35:28, Mark Young wrote: >On July 16, 2001 at 16:30:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 16, 2001 at 15:57:01, Mark Young wrote: >>[snip] >>>I’m confused, the way everyone is talking, it sounds like DeepFritz is the >>>favorite to win this match. I hear how nice the 2600+ Grandmaster played and >>>defended against the computer. >>> >>>I thought a prepared Grandmaster from what I have read here at CCC would have no >>>trouble beating a top chess program. Against a prepared human I read here by the >>>experts the program will play like a weak 2100-2200 player. >> >>Can you provide a reference message for this claim, or did you simply make it >>up? > >Dann I'm shocked, are you calling me a liar if I don't provide a reference >message? :) To make you happy Dann, as I know no one else saw this posted:) I >did make it up. If my view is worth anything, I'd say that I didn't read that Dann called you liar. I see that there're big misunderstunding problems in this forum lately. He implied that you misunderstood a post (that I hardly remember) about programs behaving like a 2100 players in certain positions. Maybe he didn't read that post, and asks you for a reference. So please, calm down everybody and try to read carefully and argue about anything related to computer chess, not liars, trollers, etc... And for the 2100 thing, I can think of a position where every pawn is blocked and the computer, having material advantage, does not sacrifice a piece for a pawn to open the postion like every human would easily do. I can't paste a FEN, cause I'm at work. José C. >Certainly preparation is going to help, but not in such a devastating way >>unless a serious flaw is discovered. >> >>And (in addition) a 2100-2200 player is by no means weak. Probably, >>he/she/they/it will beat 90% of the players in the world. >> >>>Who is the favorite in the match DeepFritz or GM Huebner? >> >>Based upon what we have seen so far, I think it will be about even, or perhaps a >>slight edge to Huebner. But there are a lot of variables. Perhaps Huebner eats >>some bad tuna. Perhaps a serious flaw is discovered in the computer program >>(e.g. a certain pattern can defeat it again and again). Perhaps a serious flaw >>is found in Huebner's approach where *he* can be beaten again and again >>(unlikely, but not inconceivable). >> >>At any rate, it is cetainly a very interesting match.
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.