Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:22:12 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 15:11:41, william penn wrote: >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 Depends on who you listen to. Many critized the g5 move in game 1. Kasparov said that was the _only_ move worth considering. Who do you believe? DB didn't make the time-wasting type moves we saw in the game above, however. IE moving the same piece two or three times in the first 15 moves.
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.