Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 21:43:42 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
> >If the point here is that anti-computer chess is unfair, I would point out that >at the top levels of chess, players prepare for each other, and they take into >account specific weaknesses of their opponents. Well the point certainly was not that it is unfair, and i intended no such insinuation. The point that i am making, is that in a swiss system tournament(where most GM's acquire their norms, a situation in which you really don't get to do much preparation for your opponent that Fritz would probably be able to acquire a GM norm. Further you must ask yourself why do we have computer chess? If the answer is to play against them competitively then whatever methods in the rules are fair. What we are trying to gauge here is is Fritz of GM strength. This term GM strength needs to be qaulified. Arthur Bisguier is a GM,he is old, and about 2350-2370 USCF. So the question to be asked, is whether Fritz is 2400-2500 strength? would you doubt that it is? > >It is not unfair to reduce the Elo of a computer opponent by playing the >Stonewall against it, nor is it unfair to play the same opening that you saw >someone use to beat it in the preceding round. > As i said it's not unfair, but what we are trying tofind out, is against typical chess play especially in a swiss system type situation where you don't know your opponent, would fritz perform at the 2400-2500 level if it was not known to be a computer. Also let me state that i would not doubt that 99% of all games played in tourneys around the world, are played against opponents without any or at least very little preparation,because most tournaments, even the ones GMs participate in are swiss system events and not round robins.
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.