Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:06:33 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 10:56:20, Ed Schröder wrote: >On April 30, 2001 at 10:01:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 30, 2001 at 07:22:24, Alvaro Polo wrote: >> >>>Hello all, >>> >>>In a recent interview Kramnik states that "We are in a very interesting phase, >>>when the strength of the best GMs and that of the best chess engines run by the >>>best processors are about equal." >>> >>>I know that this point (machines being GM strenght or nor) has been debated >>>again and again and I don't intend to post a troll. I would just like to know if >>>the consensus now among chess programmers is wether Kramnik is right or not. For >>>instance, I remember Bob Hyatt saying that computers are really 2450, etc. But >>>software evolves, CPU power evolves and perhaps now there is agreement that >>>machines are finally GM strenght? >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>Alvaro Polo >> >> >>I personally think my estimate is still pretty close. Computers have two >>serious problems: >> >>1. opening books. They depend on a human to "play the game" of choosing good >>and bad openings. This leaves them highly vulnerable to opening preparation and >>traps. Particularly when you practice against one copy and then play another >>copy which doesn't have the 'learning' from the practice games. >> >>2. blocked positions and slow build-ups in kingside attacks. Hardly anyone >>has made progress in fighting either of these problems. And they _still_ offer >>good chances for a GM that is willing to employ them. > >Problem is the results speak against your opinion. I don't think the current >top programs aren't without chance against Kramnik. > >Ed Depends on how you define "results". Humans that use a real anti-computer type of preparation are doing quite well. Humans that play normal chess are getting rolled into small wads.
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.