Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:31:37 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 12:46:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 12:29:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 12:24:08, Mark Young 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?" >>>> >>>>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... >>> >>>So far this is a Shredder problem, if the other programs play as badly then I >>>will agree with you "Huston we have a problem." >> >>Agreed... >> >> >>> >>>We can not lable all programs the same, I have seen this type of play before >>>from Shredder that is why I never considered Shredder the best program, no >>>matter how many WC titles it has won. >> >> >>No idea there. Winning a WMCCC/WCCC event is different. Computers don't attack >>worth a flip. > >I disgaree that computers do not attack. >It is dependent on the program. > >There are games when computers even sacrifice material for attack and in this >game there was no need for sacrifices. > >Uri Show me a computer that _really_ attacks. I am not talking about just moving pieces near the opponent's king, or sacrificing a piece for two pawns to get a couple of open files. I mean a program that really knows how to attack, period. With bishops on opposite corner from the king, clearing the diagonals, etc. There just aren't any...
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.