Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:19:29 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 20:13:56, Chris Carson wrote: [snip] >You could be right. :) However, DT had several failures against >the macro's on much slower hardware. I can post those later if you >like. DT 0.01 and 0.02 did have some very good results. DT had >very mixed results, some impressive, some very disappointing. :) > >The DB team was smart for not letting DB/DBII in public before the >matches. Todays commercial programs play in public and many times the >human or computer opponent has time to prepare. IMHO: In a real contest, >this is another advantage for the micors, if DB played a lot of games, >I think it's TPR' would fall. Today's commercial programs already have >that reflected in their posted TPR's. :) > >BTW: You have made some good points, both in this thread and a couple >of the other related threads. Your point of view makes me think. Thanks. I think you are going to see a titanic fall in the ELO of the micros very soon. I believe (without proof) that GM's are starting to figure out that you need to use anti-computer tactics when you play them [and to discover exactly what those tactics are]. Consider the recent Rebel rematch. I think the GM did a bit of research (or maybe played a whole bunch of games against Rebel) to figure out the techniques to use against such an opponent. If an IM like Hawkeye can give micros fits by playing anticomputer chess, then the GM's and SuperGM's will be able to crush them once they get the hang of it. However, that regained advantage will be short lived. Even if the programs do not improve at all, hardware improves exponentially. Suppose we gain only 50 ELO per year due to hardware. In ten years that's 500 ELO. The computer march forward is inexorable.
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.