Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:00:54 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 17:13:56, Mike S. wrote: >The problem with this comparison is, that comps have a much different and much >more imbalanced profile than the average human master IMO. > >The games within this posting illustrate that (see at the end): > >http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/7051.htm > >Some top programs on P600, still falling victim to the trojan sacrifice. As long >as this happens, I think we cannot talk of real IM strength. I don't think that single set of examples disprove it. IM's can make blunders too, especially at fast time control games. If you can demonstrate that statistically some program definitely has a weakness that can be explioted then we could say that the computer programs with that defect probably are not IM strength either. That is because the weakness might be expoitable over and over again. Even that would need to be demonstrated. But a few examples won't prove that point. I suspect every GM has made more than one blunder in his/her career. I also think that only games at tournament time controls should count in the discussions. Typically, the trojan horse attacks are made at blitz time controls. If you give the computers 40/2 time control, they are far less likely to get sucked into such a thing.
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.