Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 11:59:31 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 10:04:30, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >>Smirin was a bit too lucky in the match. > >1) Smirin played very well against the programs, as can be expected from a chess >player that strenght, thus winning and drawing. >2) He profited from weaknesses of his strong opponents, as again can be expected >from such a strong chess player, thus winning and drawing. > >I suppose this is an unusual tactic for you? I thought it to be the objective of >playing chess. >But I can be mistaken. Maybe all the wins in the world are just for people being >"a bit too lucky". > >J. You also could say if pre-knowledge is luck Then all humans can be lucky against a chessprogram(Just a mather of training the memory rather then being a talented chess player). I always find it to bad I never see anything new in these games. And it also gives a false interpertation of the strenght diference between Humans and chess programs. Because you might find this intresting I did have the game against Smirnin already on my computer. (It was a game of the Botvinik personelety of chessmaster8000 against gambit tiger (It was on an 800mhz system so it might be slightly diferent on the faster systems And Gambit tiger saw all the attacks And Chessmaster found them a litle later but just in time.) Just check it. I also hate this so called war afair It would be beter to be objective instead. Humans can learn much from chessprograms and the other way around This pre-knowledge based games also don't contribute anything to chess. It is for this reason why I don't like the late human computer games.
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.