Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 11:10:26 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 13:08:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 05:56:08, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On March 10, 2003 at 13:44:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 10, 2003 at 12:17:36, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>I did not look at the games but using a computer does not mean to play >>>computer moves. >>> >>>Computers can be used for analysis of positions that is not on the board >>>and I think that giving computer hours to analyze when you sleep may give more >>>information so it is better than nothing. >>> >>>I tend to believe that the top players do everything to help them and it >>>includes using computers. >>> >> >>I agree - it seems corresponcence chess is a dying sport. In maybe 10 years due >>to advances in hardware (and software, too) chessprograms will be virtually >>unbeatable. At this time top level correspondence chess will most likely be a >>battle of clever computer operators. Humans with the help of computers (not vice versa) will be clearly stronger than all computerprograms in 10 years too. Do you understand anything about Analysing with a computer? Do you know how deep one can get in a typical middlegame position? Especially if you know from experience which moves the computer oppponents prefer. Do you know what ply 20,30,40 really means? I hope so, but I have doubts when I read your statements. Artificial intelligence or Quantum computers are "necessary" to play (almost for AI) perfect chess. Not in the next 10 years of course. Michael >> >>It's more interesting how far away from this point we currently are. I read >>Junior Tay's and your interesting report about your play in the Israeli >>championship. I'd say chessprograms played and you helped them a little . There >>are probably many correspondence players who play like this, but they don't >>tell. Maybe you had a slight advantage as you understand chessprograms very well >>but on the other hand other players maybe use more than one PC and more CPU time >>which probably nearly equalizes this advantage. >> >>But your results are few and it's hard to tell how close to a corresponcence GM >>you could perform. Other correspondence players who use computers in a similar >>way usually don't post their experiences. How are your games in the Olympiad so >>far? > >I am still in the opening phase in all the games. >only 2 games are out of my database. > >I use time in the opening because I am afraid that games may be decided in the >opening(maybe it already happened in one of my games and I still do not know >it). > >I also has less time per game relative to the israeli championship because of >the following reasons: > >1)I have more opponents(10 when in the israeli competitions I had never more >than 8 opponents at the same time). >2)I use less computer time because I also use computer time for movei. > >I do not expect high result like the israeli championship and I will be happy >with 7/10. > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.