Author: José Carlos
Date: 23:52:25 01/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2002 at 01:13:50, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 11, 2002 at 19:03:43, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>Whom of the greates players in the history of chess would have the best chance >>against computers, not knowing he was playing a computer? >> >>I'm actually not talking world champions only. I don't want to exclude Morphy, >>Nimzowitch, Schlecther, Rubinstein etc. etc. >> >>Would Capablanca's style be harder for computers than Tal, for example? Just to >>name two players who had very different styles. How would Aleckhine do against a >>computer? I mean, his complicated tactical style, a computer might see right >>through? >> >>Take your pick! And please explain it too. > >From the classics, Rubinstein and Capablanca would win comfortably. >Rubisntein migh hang a piece in one game, in the rest he would pass the >middlegame with a favourable sound solid position after taking the computer out >of book very early and score in the endgame. Besides, Rubinstein would be >the player that would be less psyched by the computer. He was famous to play >against the pieces and not the player. > >Capablanca would hardly be in difficulty in any game because of his positional >play. He would be able to draw at will until he finds a complex endgame and... >the difference there is HUGE. Let me include Schlechter in this group. Very solid, brilliant positionally and good endgame player. >Nimzovich would lose catastrophically. His creative but sometimes unsound play >(particularly in the opening) will cause him huge troubles. He cannot fool >the computers. Lasker will have problems too. I would disagree about Lasker. He was a brilliant endgame player, which would give him many points against computers, and also very good in tactics so that computers would hardly outsearch him. But he was very intelligent finding the weak points in opponents' play, so let him play 2 games against a program (even not knowing who his opponent is) and he'll find the weak points very soon. >Alekhine is hard to assess. > >Young Tahl will have problems, Old Tahl will win. I think both Alekhine and Tahl would fool the programs with deep tactics and positions where the branching factor goes mad. >Petrosian will not lose a single game. If he manages to win a game, cancel >the match because it is over. I could possibly end in a tie, though. > >Botvinnik will have problems to play against an unknown enemy. If he knows >whose playing against, forget about it, he is the one that will win more easily. >He will have no fear to beat the computer in the opening! Then comes Smyslov, who I think would win if me managed to exchange some pieces and go for a simplified midgame. There he was great, switching to the endgame in the exact moment, a very difficult decision for a program. >Fischer might have a problem trying to win positions that he should not >try to force the win. That is crazy against a computer. But he would score >easily in the opening quite a few times. > >Regards, >Miguel I'd add Keres and Bronstein to the list. They would give us very interesting games, full of tactics and hard to predict a result. Just my guesses. José C.
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.