Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 12:59:05 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2002 at 13:52:28, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 11, 2002 at 09:54:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 10, 2002 at 17:27:34, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2002 at 16:22:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>> Lower-rated players are still looking for that "niche" >>>>they can play in and do well, and by "thinking outside the box" they manage >>>>to give computers a lot of trouble... The GMs, however, want to maintain >>>>their "edge" without diving into new waters, so they tend to play normal chess >>>>and have their troubles... >>> >>>You mean that anticomputer experts also if elo low rated can manage to beat >>>comps while super gm's playing their normal style are doomed... >>>I find it rather an oversimplifying concept... anticomps techs are ok, but often >>>not enough to beat an high rated silicon beast nowadays. >> >> >>I have seen masters and IM players (on ICC) do _far_ better than GM >>players against computers. Because the humans are ferocious anti-computer >>players while most GM players are not... >> >> > > >At some point in time, hopefully (and the sooner the better, because computers >are getting stronger every month), a super-GM will also become ultra-savvy on >how to play anti-computer chess. > >THEN it will get interesting! Why a GM should have to betray own style of playing at any cost ? I think it is way more satisfactory for a GM to beat an adversary using own weapons and not "dirty anticomp tricks" if you pass to me the term ...don't you think the GMs could be proud of their capacity and abilities in chess playing to have to change them to beat a stupid silicon thing? w.b.r. Otello
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.