Author: David Dory
Date: 01:50:27 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 08:28:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>On July 06, 2001 at 06:07:13, David Dory wrote:
>
>
>>When the GM's have the incentive to wallop the micro's, and yes I mean $$$$$,
>>(see Hyatt's post below this one regarding "Anti-computer playing..."). THEN
>>we'll see the REAL ability of the programs versus the GM's.
>>
>>Ask yourself just how hard are you going to train yourself to beat a micro when
>>the micro can't win the prize$$$$, anyway?
>>
>
>So you are saying that actually the computer are stronger than GM's...and you
>are stating that it's due to the lack of preparation in "anticomp" techniques ?
What I'm saying is that the real test (Is the program == GM) has not yet been
made clear. There are a number of reasons, such as:
1. It's a brand new program - GM has no/few games of the programs to study
over for preparation. Deep Blue vs. Kasparov is a classic example.
2. GM's are not competing against the program, because the programs can't win
any prizes/money anyway. If GM's are only competing for the championship
against other GM's, guess who they will prepare for, and fight hardest
against??
Naturally, I'd like to see the programs have equal footing with the humans in
the majority of chess titles and championships. Only when these conditions are
met can we really determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of both the
programs and the humans.
P.S. I don't count any "BLITZ" tournaments as representative of either. What do
you think?
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.