Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 07:31:41 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
That *is* the point. I know every master in my area. When I play one who is weak in the ending, I try to exploit that, just as he knows me, and tries to exploit my weaknesses. When I play Tiger, I know it is relatively weak if I can lock the pawns (as an example). To you, this is 'anti-computer' play. To me, I am playing it just like I would *anybody else*; going after it's weaknesses and avoid it's strengths. To me, that is normal chess. Regards, Chris On November 08, 2001 at 10:09:35, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >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.