Author: James T. Walker
Date: 07:24:49 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. Hello Mogens, Why put artificial requirements on a computer? Why should a computer be required to meet some "arbitrary" requirements like "all types of positions". Humans are not required to play unfamiliar openings/lines except to the point that their opponents can force them. They are only required to respond to the opponents moves with the best move they can conjure up. This is all that should be required of computers. Play against the opponent. Let the results stand as they may. Accept the results as they happen good or bad. I don't even understand the excitement around Tigers results. I believe that Century has already proven itself vs GM's and Century is not a match for Tiger in my opinion. The new Century may be better now but so is the new Tiger. If a GM wants to play "anti-computer" chess then so be it. He may be stepping into unknown territory himself and find it's not as good as some others think. Perhaps some GMs need to stick to what they know to be their best. Trying to play in an "artificial" style could lead to poor results also. Just another opinion. Regards, Jim
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.