Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 07:09:35 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 10:04:32, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >1. Of *course* a GM would play anti-comp. Only his 'anti-comp' stuff might be >different from *your* anti-comp stuff. You think that Kasparov wouldn't play >'anti-Anand' stuff that is tailored to Anand? Of course he would. Just as he >would play 'Anti-Fritz' stuff when playing Fritz. > >2. Sure there is a point. if I can make the computer play like a 2000, then the >computer is *not* a GM. Do you think there is *any* way I could make Kramnik >look like a 2000? If the point is to evaluate the computer *as an opponent*, >then the weaknesses of that opponent are fair game. > >3. Maybe, but then the result is meaningless. Just as meaningless as asking 'Is >anyone here capable of playing a King's Gambit and sacrificing a full piece to >mate toe computer's black king on h8?' and then trying to extrapolate that >information to something else. > >The simple issue is 'Can anybody here beat the 'best' program on a 1 GHz box at >40/2?' Any other limitations artifically weaken the human, and make the test >meaningless. > >Chris > You missed the point: play the comp like you would anyone else! Regards Jonas
This page took 0.01 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.