Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:37:44 08/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2000 at 16:29:59, walter irvin wrote: >On August 08, 2000 at 10:33:34, Peter Hegger wrote: > >>Hello, >>This has probably been done to a certain extent already. I'm wondering how the >>games of the old masters, i.e. Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch etc...stand up under >>the scrutiny of today's best computers. Are the games still as clean and >>brilliant as they seemed to be a hundred years ago? Or have they been found to >>be error ridden relics of days gone by? >>I'm wondering in particular about the "evergreen" and the "immortal" games. >>Also, Bobby Fischer's "game of the century" against Byrne. >>Thanks for any help you can give me. >>Best Regards, >>Peter > i think you will find that the computer almost always out does the master in >key positions .computers crush just about all players in tactics . I disagree. They are better in short tactics but humans are better in long tactics. i guess the >the big question is could the computer reach a key position vs morphy ect >??????????? i think there are some old masters that had styles that a computer >just could not deal with 2 that come to mind are nimzovitch and petrosian .they >were masters of the closed position game .i think they would have laughed at >computers .on the other hand tactical masters like marshal morphy ect would have >got sliced and diced . Here is one winning moves of morphy [D]r1bq1rk1/ppp3p1/7p/3P2n1/2PQ1p2/1N5P/PPP2PPK/R1B2R2 b - - 0 1 Morphy won by Nf3+ programs need a long time to find this move because they cannot see deep enough. They may suggest other sacrifices that are less convincing because white can avoid accepting them. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.