Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:56:42 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 11:41:23, George Piles wrote:
>
>
> I believe the Most vocal Critics has Been Silent, It is routine now for
>Programs to Get GM Norms even on relatively Slow machines. One would have to be
>a fool to say computers are Not GM Strength, since the evidence is Overwelming.
>I think it could be said with confidence that the top programs running on 500mhz
>and up are GM strength without doubt. I can't recall one "bad" result of the
>Computers in the last three years playing Humans. For those who claim that
>humans have only to get more experience against the programs and then the
>program results will get worst, i have this too say, "when will this happen" so
>far the computer results have Been consistent. Computers have won "far" more
>games then they have lost over a four year period. (more then enough time for
>humans to learn anti-computer methods}.
I think the best programs play at a GM-level, although there clearly are
inconsistencies. As to learning anti-computer methods, all I can say is that
although I know them, I have ZERO interest in working and perfecting on them.
What for? Spend time learning how to consistently play differently than the way
I do, in order to score some vacuous point against my computer? Forget it. I've
got better things to do with my time, even if I were certain of success. When I
play a machine, I play the same way I usually do, alhtough I am a little more
careful perhaps. The whole point about playing a program (IMHO) is to have fun
and possibly improve/practice my game. I won't do that if I do it differently.
Albert
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.