Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 01:14:51 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 01:10:54, Charles Unruh wrote: >On December 04, 1999 at 23:38:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 04, 1999 at 17:32:11, walter irvin wrote: >> >>> i think the debate on if programs are GM or not are about to end .all its going >>>to take is a couple more speed ups in mhz and its over .man is trying to hold on >>>but in the end man will be ground up like hamburger meat . rebel has been doing >>>well with this GM challenge . myself im surprised the GM's dont do better .they >>>know who they are playing , no excuse not to be prepared . >>> >>>in 5 years computers are just going to be too fast , even if programers stop now >>>and make no more improvements .i mean the day hiarcs gets 6,000,000 nps GM's are >>>going to start to need odds of knight or so . >> >> >>GMs are still refusing to acknowledge how strong computers are, and as a result, >>they are playing right into the computer's strength. IE today's game was _not_ >>the way to play against a computer. Both kings wide open, black really should >>have won because of it. > >Oh so what you are saying is that if a person plays "regular chess", then they >wont stand any chance because progs are GM strength at "regular chess"?? So you >have to revert to some anti-comp strategy to take advantage of the opponents >weakness, because the opponent can't do the same to the GM. Sort of like Team A >stealing Team B's play book, and then playing the football game huh? No, not like that at all. Stealing a playbook is cheating. Changing your style of play to take advantage of your opponent's weakness isn't cheating - it's just good strategy. --Peter
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.