Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 15:07:03 09/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 1998 at 12:10:29, blass uri wrote: > >On September 11, 1998 at 09:03:30, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On September 11, 1998 at 03:02:18, blass uri wrote: >> > >>>Sometimes computers play stupid moves that no human in the level of at least >>>2000 elo could play. >>>I cannot say it about grandmasters >>> >>>Uri >> >>In the last Rubinstein memorial the following position occured after blacks >>move 36...Rb8. >>FEN:1r/4kp/4pn1p/1P3p1P/5P/1P2KPN/8/3R w >>White played Ke4?? and black answered Nd5?? >you mean 37.Kd4 >>These were stupid moves, but were it computer moves? > >No sometimes humans do mistake that no computer could do >I think that both sides were in time trouble >but this is rare even in time trouble. >In more than 99 out of 100 cases grandmasters do not do these mistakes. > >I define a program with a human style as a program that guess grandmaster's >moves better than other programs >In this position it is a bad idea to guess the mistakes in the game because the >probability of doing these mistkes is very low. > >Uri > [Snip Karpov's game] I do not follow you well! A chess program that would guess a high percentage of Petrosian's moves would be qualified as having a more human style than others, according to your reasonning. But that same program gussing most of Petrosian's moves would never guess most of Tal's moves... Now, would that mean that Tal was LESS HUMAN THAN PETROSIAN??? You seem to view the "GM moves" as a whole, a block. But 2 different GMs could play very differently from a given position... But they are still "human players"... Serge Desmarais
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.