Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 06:05:26 07/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 08:32:47, martin fierz wrote: >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. I agree with you but the computer weaknesses are in the top programs not easily found, and if any of this weakness is found it's likewise very difficult to reproduce similar situations on the board. >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. I'm looking forward to see this interesting match. Regards.
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.