Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 04:59:49 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 04:31:05, Jeff Anderson wrote: >For a long time I have observed the debate in this forum, "Are Computers GM >strength in tournament time controls?" or some such thing. This is question is >impossible to answer unless we define what is meant by "GM Strength". To answer >the question do we disect the programs play or the programs results? I assert >that the only way to aswer the question is through the results of the top >programs. > >Some critics of the belief that the top computer chess programs are GM strength, >such as Robert Hyatt, argue that 'the computer makes this move that no GM or >even a class player would make', or that 'the computer lost in a fashion which I >very rarely see a GM lose in', or that the computer 'lacked a plan' or >'demonstrated a clear lack of chess understanding'. But these arguments are >silly. It is true that in some positions the computer will play weaker than in >others, but this is just its style. If these defects were serious enough that >the program would not be considered GM strength, then the porgrams opponents >would prevent it from demonstrating GM results. Despite errors in certain types >of positions the computers have demonstrated a clear ability to demonstrate GM >results. > >The computers are GM strength. >A top program on good hardware will not perform below GM level in a standard >time control tournament of humans ever again. > >Jeff I think if all GM knew how to play against computers, the computers wouldn't have GM strength. Look at the games from the Holland championchip. The players who knew how to play Fritz won easily. I think every player with 2300 can defeat the best computers. Martin
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.