Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Kiriakov vs Deep Shredder annotated by Kiriakov.

Author: william penn

Date: 12:11:41 06/05/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 05, 2001 at 11:33:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On June 05, 2001 at 00:16:18, william penn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  HOW can this grandmaster make this claim based on one game? Sounds to me like
>>he is one of those group of grandmasters that are threatened by the growing
>>strength of computers. By the way Gm Dreev after drawing this same deep shredder
>>says that it would get a highier elo than 2500 if it competes in fide
>>tournaments. Who's opinion would you take a 2541 grandmaster or a 2650 elo Gm
>>who has played more than one game, but many games at 40/2, so far he has played
>>three 40/2 games vs deep shredder. Go to the rebel page and you will hear other
>>grandmasters say the same thing. I am willing to bet that this grandmaster that
>>you played, has a certain system he uses regulary to beat computers, so he
>>basically wins the same type of game more than once. This has nothing to do with
>>chess strength, for if the computer was conscious it would avoid such lines
>>
>
>
>You are typically "missing the point."  A 2600 Human would _never_ play moves
>like Shredder did.  _never_.  A computer can play a 2800 game one time, and
>a 2100 game the next time.  A 2600 human will never do that.  Both will make
>an occasional blunder, to be sure.  But _no_ human rated even 1800 would play
>some of those moves Shredder played.
>
>you can't be a 2600 player if you play 1600-level moves from time to time.
>It just won't work.




   Then by your own logic Bob Byatt Deep Blue is not a 2600 player, since it
made moves all throughtout the match with kasparov that was laughed at by
grandmasters particulary in Game 1, i have read several annotations on the
games, and Deep Blue was critized by Gm's as a totally pazter, yet it was able
to defeat kasparov, which makes me wonder how they can think the thing plays so
badly. But as i said before, how a programs plays to achieve results is
irrelevant, what is important is that it achieves those results. MANY



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.