Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 09:37:08 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 12:16:57, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 10:13:29, Janosch Zwerensky wrote: > >>The top programs have consistently had performance ratings better than elo 2500, >>and in many cases indeed even better than elo 2600, where they competed against >>humans in the last two years. >>I am not aware of any 2400 rated human player to whom something similar would >>apply. > >Several 2400 players have done so. Otherwise they wouldn't be Grandmasters by >now :-). Kidding aside, I think you make the mistake of equating humans with >computer programs and disregard the meager frequency of human/program >encounters. IMO any 2400 rated player has a vastly superior understanding of the >game compared to a computer program. Something that probably wouldn't help >him/her as much against a higher rated player. And a computer program has >tactical strengths capable of defeating any player. A weaponry very few 2400 >rated players have. So the question is if the understanding of chess posessed by >an IM is sufficient to devise a strategy capable of harnessing the tactical >abilities of a computer program sufficiently. I still think that it's possible. > >Regards, >Mogens That an IM has the capability to defeat one of the top programs on fast hardware under match conditions has not been seen for quite a while. So if no one has data to prove me wrong, I think the demand for proof now is on the "Computer is not GM" side. We have seen so many comps fighting equal or beating GM's, so now I want to see an IM beating the computers! Torstein PS I still belive Kramnik will make Chop Sui ( How do I spell that Chinese dish?) of Fritz.
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.