Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:39:39 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 13:13:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Here is my take: > >If DF wins convincingly (IE by a more than one-game margin) then I will have >to re-think my GM evaluation. If DF wins by .5 or 1.0 points, it is possible >that Kramnik was too conservative, then lost one game by accident, and couldn't >catch up. If the match is tied, it won't say much either. If Kramnik wins >by some narrow margin, it could mean one of two things. He was lucky. Or he >was ultra-conservative. Don't you think it a bit odd that it would take a convincing win over the world champion to convince you that the program is of GM strength? :-) My personal opinion is that when this "are computers GM strength?" debate began, you were correct to say that no, but that times have since changed. I don't for a moment doubt that the leading computer programs can be made to look pathetic from time to time, but the flip side is that they can and do play some pretty damn good chess games as well. Dave
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.