Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 17:47:11 09/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2000 at 14:43:30, Steve Coladonato wrote: >On September 18, 2000 at 17:53:57, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On September 18, 2000 at 10:29:34, Steve Coladonato wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2000 at 02:45:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2000 at 23:25:26, Martin Grabriel wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 17, 2000 at 22:32:16, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Some of my friends ask why do we need to get the >>>>>>latest copy of the WMCC Champion, or the #1 in SSDF... it really doesn't make >>>>>>any sense to us, common chess players. What are the differences in analysys >>>>>>mode? Is there such a great difference? I'd really want to know what you guys >>>>>>think. >>>>>> >>>>>>A. Ponti >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think, for many of us, buying the latest is just an addiction... >>>>>Personally, I will be tempted to buy only if a new version comes with new and >>>>>unique features, or at least significant improvements in GUI. Mere increase in >>>>>engine strength doesn't make sense (i.e. doesn't merit a buy) as I am not a >>>>>master or grandmaster who is out to play against stronger and stronger programs, >>>>>or able to appreciate program style or analysis fully. >>>> >>>>You do not need to be a master but only to play in a correspondence tournament >>>>when using chess programs is allowed. >>>> >>>>I intend to buy a new program when the final of the correspondence championship >>>>of Israel begins. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Although I don't know what your playing strength is, I can understand the use of >>>chess programs (where allowed) in correspondence chess if you are a strong >>>enough player to not just blindly send the program's move suggestion to your >>>opponent but to consider the program's move as an alternative to the one you >>>were considering. In the case of the "common" chess player, myself included, I >>>think it makes more sense to succeed or fail on your own (and perhaps to enter >>>only correspondence events where computers are disallowed [but, alas, not >>>enforceable]). >>> >>>Steve >> >>A new type of chess player is appearing, whose main characteristic is the one >>of having a program to help him in the analyses. I believe that in the future >>we will have more tournaments of advanced chess. >>In the correspondence chess, in some countries, the use of programs >>it is already allowed. >>I don't play a chess game there are 6 years, and I stopped of playing >>correspondence chess 7 years ago. >>The pleasure that I have today with the chess is to test the programs >>in some test suites, analyze positions and to accompany GMs games >>with the aid of programs. >>I don't use a chess board there are several years, my chess board is the display >>of my computer, even if I am analyzing a position without the aid >>of a program. >> >>Paulo Soares, from Brazil > >So do you think the future of chess will be engine vs. engine in everything >except OTB? Or do you think computers will infiltrate the OTB scene also? > >Steve OTB=over the board. I delayed to know the meaning. :) I think that OTB will continue being the main option for chess, because man has the need to test its own limits. The history shows that the athletics continues being the main sport so that the man's physical limits are tested. The advanced chess (40/2, Correspondence Chess) will just be an option for OTB, with the man "driving" the engine, as well as in the motoring the man drives the car. But it will arrive the time in that the engine will be so strong that man no more will can drive it. Paulo
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.