Author: blass uri
Date: 09:19:45 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 12:17:32, blass uri wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 11:14:07, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>On July 16, 2000 at 16:26:07, Olaf Jenkner wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >>I don't think you are a computer hater, but instead you take the bull by the >>horns: A chess program will never be of GM strenght as long as the main >>weaknesses aren't solved. Like f.e. blocked positions or king's attacks. > >I disagree. >The results is relevant. >It is not easy to get the right position to get a king attack. > >Only 2 players won Deep Junior and I believe that they are not the only players >who tried to get king attack. > >I read in chesskasparov site that Junior could avoid the problem against piket >by 8.h4 and if 8...h6 9.e6 > >The difference between the scores of 8.h4 and the move that was played is >small(at least for Junior5.9) and it is possible that Junior could find h4 with >better hardware. > >piket could not be sure that he will win before the game because he could not be >sure that Junior will not find 8.h4. > >If the definition of GM strength includes to play weaker than 1800 players in >some positins than I guess that computer without GM strengh can get 3000 rating correction: I mean not to play weaker than 1800 players in some positions then... >in the future because even if they understand the stonewall and do not >understand fortress positions they will not be GM strength by your definition. > >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.