Author: Howard Exner
Date: 20:31:15 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 13:51:38, Paul Doire wrote: >On January 03, 2001 at 13:03:43, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On January 03, 2001 at 12:42:11, Paul Doire wrote: >> >>>Van der Wiel missed some opportunities, but Rebel defended well. >> >>I wonder if the missed opportunities of Van der Wiel will adversely >>effect his play in the next round? Sometimes it is not easy to shake off the >>disappointment one feels when missing a win. Being a strong professional Gm he >>probably will come out swinging. Here of course computers have an edge in the >>energy level they bring to each game. Their programmers probably make up for the >>machine's non existent feelings. How is Ed's health holding up after this one? >>Maybe paramedics should be on standby? :) >> >>Another thought on the match so far, if the two games were reversed, in that >>Rebel missed winning chances, would we be as forgiving? In other words are our >>expectations of computers too high? >> >>Van der Wiel's uncanny technique of exchanging down into advantageous >>positions continues, as it did in many of his past games against computers. > >Hi Howard, >We are absolutely non-forgiving of silicon, this is true.I know I would like to >see bigger ELO jumps from year to year from the silicon beasts, so what happens >is I ruthlessly scrutinize silicon play. >This is because I am trying to constantly evaluate THE BIG JUMP in ELO from >the top program to clearly separate itself from the crowd and to start >separating itself from the GM's(yeah right!still a way to go on that one). > >I hope Ed will incorporate whatever wisdom is learned from the match into the >next patch. >Cheers< >paul I agree with your view of scrutinizing computer play. The CCC crowd carries with it more insight than the person on the street. As far as the person on the street is concerned they most likely believe the best player on the planet is Deep Blue. Not taking into account the actual game play. At least most Gm commentators believed Kasparov dominated games 3,4 and 5 but was unable to put the last nail in the coffin (again a credit to the play of Deep Blue). Here too the general public would only be mindfull of the 1-1 result in Van der Wiel vs RC3. We know, as Jim Walker also stated, that Van der Wiel has been in the driver's seat in both games. Plus the programmers here all seem committed to continuously improve their programs therefore the increased scrutiny.
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.