Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:52:13 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 00:15:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 23:54:39, Jeff White wrote: > >>>it won't happen because in man-machine matches, the machines put up the money, >>>and, who pays decides how the match is played (=chessbase, mostly). i'm sure all >>>the programmers are very aware of the fact that their programs would have >>>significantly worse chances in a longer match, so this won't happen at the time >>>being. >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >>Which brings me back to my original statement, a 24 game match would be good, >>but playing shorter matches and winning really only gives software companies a >>false sense of security. EVENTUALLY the computer will be number one as it is in >>Checkers and Othello. > >Maybe someday a new Tinsley will be born and the best the computer will be able >to do is draw. very unlikely. tinsley lost two games in the first match against chinook, and that version of chinook was clearly weaker than the version which he played in the second match. i don't doubt that he would have lost games in the second match, had he been able to play. of course, he might still have won the match. chinook defended it's newly won title against don lafferty and got a +1-1=18 result in a 20-game match. and tinsley was a stronger player than lafferty... today's PC programs are likely better than chinook at the time. aloha martin
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.