Author: Will Singleton
Date: 10:17:27 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 12:28:20, Fernando Villegas wrote: >What would be a serious match in your opinion? >I ask you this because too many times I have seen that good results for >computers are at once relativized with some kind of "this is not serious" kind >of argument. On the contrary, if the GM gets the upper hand, then at once it is >considered a proof of "how much superior they are". >fernando Hi Fernando, Hard to say how to do a serious match. The trick is to get the GM motivated to win. I don't believe a champion GM would agree to a winner-take-all computer match, but that might do it. Or if the outcome of the match was to decide the official world champion, that might be good enough. Perhaps in the future when computers get a bit stronger, the humans will have no choice but to play serious matches. Not now. I don't know if you were listening to the chess.fm commentary, but the IM commented that Kramnik controlled the entire match, whether by crushing Fritz in the early going, or losing by blunders, or taking the gm draw. Fritz was never really a factor, and the clear implication was that a motivated Kramnik could do very much better than a drawn match. The silver lining for me is that the game of chess appears to be particularly and stubbornly difficult to master for computer science. The game goes on. Will
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.