Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:00:08 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 07:36:33, Tanya Deborah wrote: >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. Yes, and I think Rodriguez' 10.Rad1?! was clearly dubious. By this move white permitts 10.-a4 and is driven back while black gains space. Much more natural was to react against the threat 10.-a4 with f.e. 11.Bb5. Sune > >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.