Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 07:39:08 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 00:16:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I have used the term "computer shock" for 20+ years. It still fits. Computers >are not regular tournament participants, which means that meeting one under >such conditions is a "shock". And generally the human does far worse the >first time around than the second... > >This will continue until computers are pervasive in chess. They aren't, >yet... Ah so that's the name for it. I totally agree with the computer shock idea, but I've never heard it given a name. I think that if humans really approached computers and strong players rooted out the weaknesses in programs they would do much better against them overall. This must be the case when you can have some weak masters who can run circles around some of the top programs while GM's have trouble with them half the time. The GM has made his living on playing chess against humans so he continues to play the same way against the computer. But I think that the GM's real strength is his ability to analyze the style of different players and use the weaknesses to his advantage. So it's really a matter of sitting down and working out the program's "style" for a strong player. 99% of the world's chess playing population is simply too weak tactically to compete against a computer, but it's not an impossible task to become tactically sound with hard work. I think there is still a lot of room for improvement on both sides. Russell
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.