Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:54:31 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 18:24:44, Amir Ban wrote: >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 Guess that convinces me....
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.