Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:00:36 06/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2001 at 22:52:19, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Perhaps the debate could be clarified - well, I will try to do so- a little bit >if we discern between brute strenght showed by results and the quality of a >game, mainly grounded in positional understanding. In this last aspect I cannot >but to agree with you Bob; programs are not GM in quality of the game they >offer. That's clear. Nevertheless, in terms of results, maybe the other guy has >a point. Probably this is a tricky issue because chess games usually ends for a >tactical reason a lot of times, so the positional aspect is hidden. A computer >could be positionally busted and even so win the game because in the last minute >the human side missed a blow. It has happened to me -an to infinite human chess >player- thousands of times and I think it happens all the time to GM, although >in a lot more higher ground of finesse. So, in the paper, measured from a point >of view of "pure" chess, programs ar at most 2100 or 2200 players; in the realm >of facts, of rsults, they win enough times to be considered, I believe IM >strenght players, sometimes even more. >Fernando I don't disagree there at all. IM is believable in a way, because the difference between an IM and a GM is a _wide_ gulf of knowledge and experience. But you can't survive on tactics _all_ the time. The opponents simply stop letting the game get tactical...
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.