Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 14:34:52 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 17:02:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 10:14:45, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 05, 2000 at 22:38:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I find this entire discussion extremely funny. >>> >>>The _programmers_ say the programs are _not_ 2600 players. The non-programmers >>>claim they are. Who would you suppose has the best perspective to make that >>>judgement? >> >>Unless they're 2600 players themselves, how would they know? > >It isn't hard, believe me.. > >> >>Perhaps the non-programmers are weighing the evidence more impartially than the >>programmers. The programmers might be too engrossed in the trees to be able to >>see the forest! > > >The other way around, in fact. The 'non-programmers' are too caught up watching >GMs lose blitz games on the servers, and they pay less attention to the games >than they do to the results of the games. many 'won' games are lost by a GM >when he makes a small tactical error. Part of the game, you say? Of course. >But the computer played into a lost position and lucked out. I see this in >_many_ games. I have seen many games where Crafty has simply outplayed a GM >move for move, even into endgames (I used to fear reaching endgames with GM >players, but in general don't any longer as it has improved an awful lot there). > Here I agree. I am far from grandmaster strenght, but I can clearly see the improvement in crafty's endgame play and analysis from version 15.x to current version (and I do not use tablebases). [big snip]
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.