Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 06:03:14 10/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1998 at 00:37:24, John Coffey wrote:
>On October 06, 1998 at 00:33:05, odell hall wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I realize that some may view this question to be rediculous, however I ask it
>>anyway in hopes of fueling some interesting debate. My extreme fascination with
>>chess and specifically Chess Masters began about 15 years ago, ofcourse at that
>>time computer programs were not very strong. For years I wanted very badly to be
>>able to play against a Chess Master but this was often impossible because there
>>were not many masters living in our area (kansas, oklahoma). When I realized
>>that That technology had developed the means to produce "Artificial Masters" I
>>was overwelmed with JOY!!. However to this very day this joy is mixed with a
>>deep down suspicion that perhaps What I am getting is not a "real Master" at
>>all. This doubt was originally fueled by an article i read in computer chess
>>reports back in 1994, Where someone Stated that computers are not real Masters
>>in the True sense of the word.(Whatever that means!). Also a couple of months
>>ago I asked our states strongest player(2317) If he thought that computer
>>programs are playing Master Level Chess. The Master stated that no they are
>>not!! According to the Master Computer programs play a completley different
>>type of Chess that is different than what humans play. To be honest this
>>explanation is a little confusing to me. In my opinion Chess is Chess, there is
>>strategy, and tactics. It is irrelevant how a person or machine arrives at the
>>move that it makes as long as the end result produces the win. So what does it
>>matter how a machine plays chess as long as it is produces good results. Using
>>this logic, My view is that a Master is one who produced Master level results.
>>Playing style being of no consequense. Is my view point valid? How many agree?
>
>
>The discrepency between the way computers and humans play chess is not as
>great as it used to be. Modern day programs have a better positional feel
>and can see deep enough to get some planning.
>
>The question should not be if they are masters, but if they are IM's or GM's.
>I suspect that Fritz 5 would beat any mere NM.
>
>John Coffey
Hi,
programs seem to have problems in many areas. Here is an example where a program
- Crafty 15.20 on a 2XPPro 233 MHz - had problems in long range tactics. As you
may see Crafty played the opening well. Thats because off a good book. Crafty
played the middle game well for a long time. Then Crafty simply didn't look far
enough. The end is typical for a program - Crafty sacrifies pieces.
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "2xPPro 233"]
[Date "1998.10.06"]
[Round "-"]
[White "bbauer"]
[Black "wcrafty15.20"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "40/600"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Be3 Bb4 7. Nxc6
bxc6 8. Bd3 d5 9. exd5 cxd5 10. O-O O-O 11. Bd4 Qe7 12. Qf3 Bd7 13. Qf4 Bc5
14. Be5 Bc6 15. Qh4 h6 16. Rae1 Nd7 17. Qxe7 Bxe7 18. Bf4 Bb4 19. Re2 Bxc3
20. bxc3 Nc5 21. Rb1 Rfc8 22. Re3 Ne4 23. Bxe4 dxe4 24. c4 f6 25. Reb3 e5
26. Be3 f5 27. g3 g5 28. Rb4 f4 29. Bd2 Kf7 30. a4 a5 31. Rb6 Ke7 32. Bc3
fxg3 33. hxg3 h5 34. Bxe5 h4 35. gxh4 gxh4 36. Bd4 Kd7 37. Rd1 Bxa4 38.
Bf6+ Ke8 39. Rd4 Bxc2 40. Rb7 Bd3 41. Re7+ Kf8 42. Rdd7 Bxc4 43. Rh7 Bg8
44. Rh8 Rc1+ 45. Kh2 Rb8 46. Rg7 Rh1+ 47. Kxh1 Rb1+ 48. Kh2 Rh1+ 49. Kxh1
e3
{Black resigns} 1-0
Kind regards
Bernhard
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.