Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:24:44 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 13:31:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Computers are tremendous attackers. It's their strongest point. Amir
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.