Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 12:51:30 07/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2001 at 12:24:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On July 21, 2001 at 11:48:20, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>In case of another draw tomorrow, there will be another "big point" for the >>computer party, since Huebner isn't known only as "drawish" player but as an >>anti-computer specialist and a strong GM first of all. > >Hmm, I thought he hated computers. I don't doubt he'll have done >at least some preparation for this match but that does not make him an >anticomputer specialist. > The fact the he hates the computers reinforce his motivation to beat them, and accordingly the specialistic preparation needed against them. >Rebel's result over Van der Wiel was more impressive in this regard. > >>That should mean that human and comps are in a good equilibrium, and IMHO >>taking in account recent argentinian results, the balance plate is starting to >>fall in the computer side. >There are good arguments for Tiger and Fritz, but about the other >computers I don't know. I was obvoiusly referring to them , probably generalizing too much. >I don't think this match means much (this is my opinion, feel free to >disagree) for either argument. I disagree for this simple fact : it wasn't just one game match and neither a blitz match. So the result is _very_ significative since it is a six-game match and moreover on regular tournament time. Then Dr. Hubner had also the opportunity to prepare against his "silicon" opponent. Hubner is only a single opponent, which >isn't remotely as representative as playing a full field of GM's (as >Tiger has done). Also, this is a match, so matchplay strategies apply. What do you mean for matchplay strategies ? >I'm far from impressed by play from either side. Hubner blundered away >a win and Fritz never really had the upper hand at any time. > >I'd expected quite a bit more from this match. To me it looks as if >Hubner was playing for draws in the hope of the computer making a (big) >positional blunder to capitalize on. But he wasn't able to. If he starts >pushing for a win he might very well lose. >Bah. The other Dortmund games are way more interesting Sorry but the fact they are more interesting relies to the fact that probably they weren't all draws ? Let me understand that since to me the human vs. machine match was far more interesting than the others: De gustibus non disputandum est. Regards.
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.