Author: Tanya Deborah
Date: 04:36:33 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 06:44:49, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 06:31:49, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >>Games where a GM play anticomputer openings are really boring. GM´s needs to >>play like GM Andres today, without any anticomputer opening... and test the real >>strenght of the machine. > >That's absolute nonsense. The best way to determine the "real strength of the >machine" is to test it with all types of positions, whether they're arbitrarily >categorized as being anti-computer or not. > >Mogens. Also the same for a GM player. If we want to know if a GM is a real GM player, or play at GM strenght we need to test him like a computer, in many kind of positions ( open and closed positions) and compare results. GM can´t be test like a computer. This is the point. If you have a GM that help you and play all the time with you, (like a chess program) you will find that he also will be weak in many kinds of positions. Example : GM Andres (2500 elo) played today like a 2000 player in a very known position... It is very difficult to play always good, I mean in all kinds of positions. I strongly believe that chess programs in fast machines are GM players. and i am very happy for that! Of course, still there are many work to do about make better and better Computer chess programs.
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.