Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:08:13 04/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2002 at 14:25:12, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On April 02, 2002 at 12:36:23, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On April 02, 2002 at 11:52:52, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On April 01, 2002 at 18:20:11, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>> >>>>I am not surprised, In fact that is what I said before. To be _well_ prepared >>>>against computers you need a lot of time that will be wasted since they >>>>play humans the rest of the year. >>> >>>Or perhaps some humans are weaker than some comps, tactically speaking of >>>course...Chess is chess anyway, don't you think ? :) >> >>No, chess is not chess anyway. It depends a lot on who your opponent is, and >>everybody knows it. > >Of course...I agree with you. >But what about the comments of Gulko on great positional play of Hiarcs ? >Don't you think that it passed (in that case) the Turing test ? I think that Gulko did not learn to take advantage of the weaknesses of hiarcs. I think that every top programs has positions that it has good positional understanding and positions that it has bad positional understanding and the positions are different for different programs. I do not see something special with hiarcs that is different than other top programs. Uri
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.