Author: Tania Devora
Date: 14:28:38 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 15:53:25, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:
>On January 14, 2001 at 14:03:40, Garry Evans wrote:
>
>> The End Result is what really counts don't you think?
>
>You are absolutely right.
>And on that point chess computers fail still too often. As long as it is
>possible to get a high score against a chess computer with relatively simple
>tactics ("anti-computer tactics") - and you don't need to be a rocket scientist
>to play and understand them- the way to the GM level is still not ended.
>
>How many strong chess players really have adapted themselves to chess engine
>play as to playing their human opponents? A former champ like Karpov even has
>proplems moving a mouse, let alone the pieces against a chess engine.
>
>At this moment for a lot of strong chess players, the chess engine is still a
>gadget, not to be taken too seriously. If all started to play them seriously, I
>suspect without changing and developing playing style chess engines would lose
>terrain. They won't -hopefully- as development goes on.
>
>First results are impressive, Junior, Fritz SSS, Rebel, in competitions and
>tournaments, but how often did they really compete as regulars? How many human
>players prepare the way they should prepare?
>
>
>Mind you, I do *not* state the opposite of your opinion, I just conclude that
>chess computers are very far, yet still not there.
>
>Jeroen ;-}
The computer programs will have to compete in more tournaments against humans to
have a real result about their GM strenght...I mean under tournament time
controls. For me the programs running in a fast machine is a clear GM.
See the excellent result that Junior had in the Dortumund! He score 50% and
obtained a 2703!!! elo. This is a very very good score for a chess program.
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.