Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:32:47 07/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 08:17:26, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 06, 2001 at 05:29:53, martin fierz wrote: > >>i'm really looking forward to this, because i believe it is a much more >>meaningful test for a program than a single game against an underprepared GM. >> > >I don't think they were underprepared in the argentine master, since they tried >also "anticomputer" techniques. i don't want to imply that they were *un*prepared. just *under*prepared: i think that to exploit a computer's weaknesses you must do much more than just look at a few computer games the evening before your game. and that is what the average preparation during a tournament amounts to. playing against a computer and playing against a human is very different. even if you are a GM, you must *learn* how to play against a computer. you need more than a few hours for this. it's not like learning an entirely new game, but similar to learning a new opening. what i and others are arguing is that a well-prepared GM is still better than a computer. this match will show if this is correct or not, because huebner is well known for being a perfectionist (annotations to his games are usually about 10-20 pages - no words, only variations). a person like him will certainly prepare seriously for this kind of match. not just a few hours. he will try to learn anti-computer techniques. if he cannot make it work, then no ordinary GM can. cheers martin
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.