Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:08:02 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>>You are absulutely right. >>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>correct. >>> >>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>> >>>:_( >>> >>>Uri >> >>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>and dispose of you. > >Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? > >Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. > >All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. > >So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >questionmark moves from Junior! Because Kasparov didn't want deep blue to look bad. There is many games in kasparov-deep blue where kasparov is dead won and then plays the most silly move in the position after which kasparov is no longer dead won. Take the Ng5-h3?? move where Be3 wins eyes closed and which is a bullet move for anyone with a FIDE rating. >-S
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.