Author: Mike Hood
Date: 08:05:33 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 19:32:28, Chessfun wrote: >On February 06, 2003 at 19:18:14, GuyHaworth wrote: > >>>I wouldn't rely on those guys as far as the book. They don't seem to understand >>>how computers use books, or how they use time, or how pondering can affect >>>things. Fed had a particularly bad day, saying again the "computer is toast," >>>right before the draw. >>> >> >>To be fair to chess.fm, they were reporting a listener's input to them about >>opening books. >> >>g > > >IMHO they seem to know very little about Chess programs in general. Will is >right they have no understanding at all, of how a PC program uses it's book, >when it's in book, or even if it can get back into book. They should at least >take the time IMO to find things like that out especially after the earlier Deep >Fritz match when the same types of comments were made. > >It also maybe wouldn't hurt them to have a PC program open during the broadcast, >rather than lets look what my program says in analysis mode then quote a 10 ply >or 10 second search?. > >Sarah. On the one hand, the chess.fm commentators had very little idea about computer chess, especially GM John Federovich. In one game, when asked why Junior was thinking so long, he answered, "I think the computer is still in book, but it's spending a long time thinking about its following moves". On the other hand, do they really have the time to immerse themselves into the subject matter? On the day of the first match the commentator said that he had been on the air since 6:30 commentating on other games. If you consider that it was 3:30 pm in New York, he had been on the air for 9 hours, and a game was just beginning that could last up to 7 hours. I hope he at least gets a good salary.
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.