Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:07:17 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 04:06:20, Mark Young wrote: >Computer programs have now passed every test it seems that people have produced >objections for to debunk the above results. > >1. Preparation >2. Motivation >3. Quality of players >4. Money >5. Match conditions against strong GM prepared players. >6. Tournament conditions with strong GM players. > >Even with all the “holes” still left in the modern chess programs play, which >the critics of GM level play for computers rightly, point out. It must be noted >that the human side has only been able to produced 5 wins against these >weaknesses, while the computer side has produced 18 wins against the human >weaknesses. None of the mentioned programs can be attributed with GM strength based on their individual results. And the term itself doesn't make much sense as have been mentioned a few times before. >This begs the logical question: Which side has more “holes” that need to be >fixed, Humans or Computers? Judging by the argumentation used, I would say humans. Fixing the trolling nature of some individuals is another priority as far as I can tell. Mogens.
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.