Author: Don Prohaska
Date: 08:15:45 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
It seems you missed the point! No excuses, just observations. Tyson took the count from Douglas because he didn't take him seriously and didn't do much training. He should have lost. An observation. But you are wrong that a computer program is at a disadvantage against a human. Just when did Kasparov or Anand get to play the computer "all day long." Certainly the computer has a an advantage if it doesn't get tired. Just as a young 20 year old GM will have an advantage if he plays an old 85 year old GM. It is just obvious. Nothing bad. Just the facts. You act as if I'm going after you or your statements. I don't think I was countering whatever you said. If so, I didn't mean to. On July 26, 1998 at 08:08:14, Shaun Graham wrote: > . The top computer chess programs are powerful. How good when >>playing many games against top humans is another matter. Perhaps the GM must pay >>more attention to what he's doing. After all, one of the computer's strength is >>its memory. It doesn't forget and it can't be bluffed and it doesn't get tired. >>Perhaps the GM sometimes plays at a handicap. >> > >Must pay more attention to what he is doing? That is an excuse, paying >attention is a component of chess skill. If you say that a GM is performing at >a handicap because he/she can't remember as well, and doesn't get tired. Well >then any time the average GM is playing kasparov he is playing at a handicap. >Further what you are saying is that he is weaker, because endurance and memory >are components of chess skill. If anyone is at a disadvantage it's the >computer. Gm's can prepare for a computer all day long, the only preparing a >computer can do against a human is with the opening book. There's a problem >with even this, because the computer isn't deciding in such cases which openings >to use against GM's but it is in fact people,(usually non GMs) deciding. > > >>On July 25, 1998 at 15:38:04, odell hall wrote: >> >>> >>>A Very Good and interesting point! I have also followed some of the statements >>>of the "computer chess experts" regarding the question of Grandmaster strength >>>of Modern chess programs. My understanding of their comments is that We do not >>>have enough Games at 40/2hrs against humans to make a claim of grandmaster >>>strength for programs. However My question is How many Do We Need? It seems to >>>me that rebel 9 more then proved it was a grandmaster in the Aegon 97 tournament >>>with it's 2619 performance ratings where it scored 1 out of 2 against >>>grandmasters and defeated every international master it played, some of these >>>were in fact strong IM"s. Also let us not forget Rebel 9 outstanding performance >>>at santo domingo tournament where it scored 13 points!! to win the tournament >>>over Seven international master at 40/2hrs. It appears that such performances go >>>beyond the abilitites of an alleged "weak international master". True We do not >>>have a whole lot of games at 40/2hrs between computers, and humans but the ones >>>that we do have demonstrate clearly that computers programs are performing at >>>the grandmaster level, so why not give credit where credit is due? Is it perhaps >>>because of deep seated prejudices that computer are a threat to chess? If I am >>>wrong here would someone show me where all the games are where top programs are >>>not performing at the GM level, because all the games that I have seen Indicate >>>that they are.
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.