Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:55:15 05/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2002 at 15:04:24, stuart taylor wrote: >On May 15, 2002 at 13:50:21, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>You have mentioned all the reasons, except one: it is very sedate to lose a game >>againts a GM class program and so not to realize that we would lose the same >>game againts a club player anyway. We develop a self deception in that way, our >>loses accounted as being suffered because of the mastery of the program instead >>of our own weaknesses. >>Fernando > >REALLY?! Is that true? A human GM can leave his queen en prise for you to take >(with no compensation). A computer can't do that even if it wanted to. Machines blunder also. Just different sorts of blunders. >When I see human GM losses, it is often so easy to see. But machines don't ever >allow these simple tactical wins. I wish it were so easy for me. I have puzzled 45 minutes to try to understand why a GM made a single move. >So I think that human GM's are much sweeter to play than top computers! And even >if you win the computer, you must continue till it resigns or is mated, and for >good reason too. The machine doesn't give up because it's losing or "lost", so >it need not resign! Easily configurable. >I once los a freindly game to IM Malcom Pein and I thought, of course! he's an >IM. But when I got home i saw that a simple program (genius 3 on 386, perhaps) >played all his good moves at blitz level if not instant! > >S.Taylor
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.