Author: stuart taylor
Date: 01:37:26 05/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2002 at 15:55:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. You never get solvable chess problems from computer/computer games, but you get very many from GM/GM games. Some are rather easy to find. > >>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. It's not as necesary for a computer to resign, at a high level, if it is still very difficult for a winning human opponent to avoid a losing move. > >>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.