Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 05:47:00 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 07:57:58, Mark Young wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 07:39:19, odell hall wrote: > >>On July 23, 2001 at 06:16:44, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On July 22, 2001 at 14:19:22, Joshua Lee wrote: >>> >>>>On July 22, 2001 at 09:13:39, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 22, 2001 at 09:02:54, Joshua Lee wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>You've never read GM Kramnik's statements about a Match with Fritz have you? >>>>>>Basically if a GM want's a Draw then he will get one. Heubner hasn't been very >>>>>>active untill recently so this may be a little warm up. But none the less he >>>>>>should've crushed fritz seeing how it only deserves a 2612 rating if it were on >>>>>>hardware several times faster than it was. Hat's off to Fritz and it's >>>>>>programmers. >>>>> >>>>>I think Huebner did what he could to draw, nothing more nothing less, i was not >>>>>impressed with either DF or Huebner. Huebner was affraid to lose, and excanged >>>>>pieces like his life depended on it BOOOORING. DF 2612 on a dual 1gig, CT14.0 >>>>>2782 on an 800mhz maby the wrong program is to face Kramnik??? >>>>> >>>>>Regards >>>>>Jonas >>>> >>>>Results like the one's you mention prove that this is not an exact science. >>>>while DF can Draw like a GM and CT can beat a GM or two maybe 3 (i didn't follow >>>>the match) I seriously doubt that Computers are GM's in every phase of the game >>>>Kasparov said DB "The computer was like a 2800 player in the endgame", i think >>>>the DB team said they had all 6 piece and some 8 piece endgame tablebases but i >>>>may be mis quoting the team This is a hugh statement coming from one of the best >>>>endgame players (Karpov and Smyslov helped with Encyclopedia of Chess Endgames >>>>which may not say much lots of errors however Smyslov's Rook Endings is supposed >>>>to be really good) >>>> >>>>So Computers play over 2000 in the endgame for sure >>>>Chess Tiger and other programs when it comes to tactics will play over 2000 >>>>Deep Fritz can make GM draws but even experts 2000-2199 have beaten GM's on >>>>occasion so this does NOT say much >>> >>>The day you have a GM or IM say yes it's as >>>>good as me or it is better then i think this confusion will be over. >>> >>>The confusion is over then, some players have already made such statments to >>>this effect. >> >> >> Mark if God Himself were to come down to earth and declare Computers to be >>Grandmaster strength, these people here would still say the aren't, buttom line >>is no amount of logic, reason, or results will sway them because it is an >>emotional issue with many, some can't accept that computers can do something as >>well as humans, so your probally wasteing your time. It seems like common sense >>after all these sensational results, but like I said logic doesn't apply here. > >I once read and I agree with it...computer chess is not man vs. machine, it is >man vs man. Hi Mark, I partially disagree with your above statement, since if it deeply true that the software was written by a man, it's also true that is powered by a machine, that is per-se fail-proof and calculates far more deeply than humans. The matter is that some people is embarrassed to admit that some of these "stupid machines" are starting to overcome the best human specialists in this particular field. Regards. > >So I do not have this emotional issue to bias my judgement.
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.