Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: IF Kramnik had NOT played Qc4, then.....

Author: Louis Fagliano

Date: 23:44:02 10/13/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 13, 2002 at 17:31:03, Terje Vagle wrote:

>Did Deep Fritz have a winning position?
>
>[D]2N3k1/5p2/1p4pp/4n3/4Q3/4P1PP/q4PK1/8 b - - 0 34

As far as the technical aspect of chess is concerned, no.  Kramnik could hold a
draw with best play for both sides.

But the key is "best play for both sides".  Kramnik, the human, was getting
tired.  Fritz, the computer, has an infinite supply of mental energy, so to
speak, and would never get tired.  The question is would it have been ethical
for Mathias Feist to decline all offers of a draw and force Kramnik to endure a
100-120 move game in the hope of driving him to exhastion?

If it is two humans aginst each other then I think it could be argued that it's
O.K. for one human to try and drive another into exhaustion since that human
himself is subject to exhaustion and the tactic might backfire on him.  But a
computer operator turning forcing a human to endure something that the computer
is immune to seems a bit unfair.

On the other hand computers and humans have different strengths and weaknesses.
The human GM will mercilessly use his strength of better long range planning
(especially in closed positions) against the computer so why not the computer to
use it's strength of virtual tirelessness against human?

What do others think?



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.