Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 05:08:14 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
. The top computer chess programs are powerful. How good when >playing many games against top humans is another matter. Perhaps the GM must pay >more attention to what he's doing. After all, one of the computer's strength is >its memory. It doesn't forget and it can't be bluffed and it doesn't get tired. >Perhaps the GM sometimes plays at a handicap. > Must pay more attention to what he is doing? That is an excuse, paying attention is a component of chess skill. If you say that a GM is performing at a handicap because he/she can't remember as well, and doesn't get tired. Well then any time the average GM is playing kasparov he is playing at a handicap. Further what you are saying is that he is weaker, because endurance and memory are components of chess skill. If anyone is at a disadvantage it's the computer. Gm's can prepare for a computer all day long, the only preparing a computer can do against a human is with the opening book. There's a problem with even this, because the computer isn't deciding in such cases which openings to use against GM's but it is in fact people,(usually non GMs) deciding. >On July 25, 1998 at 15:38:04, odell hall wrote: > >> >>A Very Good and interesting point! I have also followed some of the statements >>of the "computer chess experts" regarding the question of Grandmaster strength >>of Modern chess programs. My understanding of their comments is that We do not >>have enough Games at 40/2hrs against humans to make a claim of grandmaster >>strength for programs. However My question is How many Do We Need? It seems to >>me that rebel 9 more then proved it was a grandmaster in the Aegon 97 tournament >>with it's 2619 performance ratings where it scored 1 out of 2 against >>grandmasters and defeated every international master it played, some of these >>were in fact strong IM"s. Also let us not forget Rebel 9 outstanding performance >>at santo domingo tournament where it scored 13 points!! to win the tournament >>over Seven international master at 40/2hrs. It appears that such performances go >>beyond the abilitites of an alleged "weak international master". True We do not >>have a whole lot of games at 40/2hrs between computers, and humans but the ones >>that we do have demonstrate clearly that computers programs are performing at >>the grandmaster level, so why not give credit where credit is due? Is it perhaps >>because of deep seated prejudices that computer are a threat to chess? If I am >>wrong here would someone show me where all the games are where top programs are >>not performing at the GM level, because all the games that I have seen Indicate >>that they are.
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.