Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:43:41 09/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2005 at 19:30:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 11, 2005 at 18:49:05, Amir Ban wrote: > >>As for the implied suggestion in your reasoning, that significant strength >>improvement in computer chess is not equivalent to improvement in chess proper, >>give us another break. This throws us a decade back to the somewhat primitive >>suggestions by some that the apparent great advances and achievements of engines >>then meant nothing: They are not GM strength, some mythical 2000 player can beat >>them any time, last night on ICC this and that happened, etc. etc. Luckily for >>us, we don't have to endure these myths any longer as events have forced these >>people into silence. >> >>Amir > > >Wrong. It's only the rising perfection of adding opening books and tables which >allow these programs to fake GM strength. Without it these machines are still as >dumb as or even dumber than 2000 players with experience of anti-computer chess. >That this fake is violating the FIDE laws should be clear. No 1)chess programs are GM strength also in FRC when opening books are not used. 2)Anti-computer chess is irellevant here and if chess programs can suggest better moves than GM's when they analyze my games then I can see them as GM strength even in the hypotetical case that they lose against IM's who play anti-computer chess. 3)I see no reason not to allow tablebases. Tablebases were calculated by computers and I see no reason not to allow these calculations if other calculations are allowed. Uri
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.