Author: Hristo
Date: 05:53:52 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 08:00:08, Sune Larsson wrote: >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. > yep ... and also 12. Nb5 seems more logical than the dubious 12. a3(?) ... I believe that after this white are in a worst position. a5-a4 gains position for black mainly because of the silly a3(?) ... However, CTiger played this game very well ... infact after only 20 moves the game was over! ;-) However, COMPS are not GMs. Not by a long shot! Just performance in competitions is not my way of measuring the COMPS. It is given that in a tournament most COMPS can cover a GM norm. This is not enough, for me, to consider that COMP=GM ... For one the GM has a human aspect to it and COMP does not! ;-) regards. hristo > 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.