Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:18:03 02/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 1998 at 08:57:19, Gianluigi Masciulli wrote: >On February 16, 1998 at 21:28:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>assuming that the GM's don't get too lazy and rely on the machines for >>more than tactical analysis... > > >assuming they will be not lazy at all, ... what you think will be >the elo of the ciborg "Kasparov+Comp" ? > >Gianluigi Masciulli Here's my "curbstone" analysis: 1. computers are tactically strong, positionally very weak when compared to GM players. 2. GM players are strong overall, but in *every* game you can probably take a computer, go over the moves, and find at least one gross tactical oversight. These oversights don't always change the game outcome, but they are there. 3. A GM player, with a computer assistant, won't make such tactical mistakes, but will still play with a GM's positional skill. I'd suspect this will raise the level of play significantly. The better the GM learns how to use a computer, the better he will play, because he can worry less about tactical problems and concentrate on positional issues and let the computer refute the positional ideas that have tactical refutations..
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.