Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:28:45 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 13:03:42, Mark Young wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 12:56:21, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 12:52:33, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On April 15, 2002 at 12:49:59, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On April 15, 2002 at 11:52:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 15, 2002 at 08:56:27, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 15, 2002 at 08:17:04, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>So, are these the programs supposed to play at a 2700 level? Sure, they win many >>>>>>>games against strong humans, but... Where is their chess competency? Shredder´s >>>>>>>errors against Smirin were so elementary that they would not fit well in a >>>>>>>strong club player´s blitz game. >>>>>> >>>>>>Let's not go crazy over ONE game! we need to ask these questions after the >>>>>>match, also you can not say "So, are these the programs supposed to play at a >>>>>>2700 level?" when this is a games based on one programs performance! >>>>>>Other than that i agree, it was not pretty... >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>>>Jonas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think the thing that troubles _some_ of us greatly is this question: >>>>> >>>>>"Can you name any GM that would play a single game that looks as bad as >>>>> that one?" >>>> >>>>Kasparov (2800+) vs DBII the final game. >>> >>>Yes, that one must be the best of all. Really a awful game by the best GM of our >>>age. >> >>Guess GK is not a GM, any 1200 player would see that. > >Yes, that is why I don't agree with Bob and others, you can not take a snap shot >of a players play, computer or human and make a judgement. Rating is how we >measure, and should be the only measure. Rating is based on all wins, losses, >and draws against all players. > You don't understand the basic difference between "botching an opening from memory" and "totally not understanding king safety"??? Kasparov will probably _never_ botch that opening move order again. But computers will continue to botch king safety evaluations for a _long_ time. Just as they _have_ for a long time already... >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Of course, questions like "OK, how can a program play like a 2600+ in one game >>>>> then play like a 1900- in another game?" and that _is_ a good question. But >>>>>as the old proverb goes, "the chain is only as strong as its weakest link." IE >>>>>Smirin could lose the remainder of the games (not likely of course) and it would >>>>>_still_ be difficult to call this a "GM performance" after a game like that... >>>>> >>>>>GMs do have bad days. But not _that_ bad. It perfectly highlighted just how >>>>>weakly programs evaluate king-safety. _all_ programs...
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.