Author: Steve
Date: 12:27:01 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 13:17:27, Will Singleton wrote: >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.