Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 04:44:43 07/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
>This may all be true, however, my point was to young Ali, he's badly misinformed >if he really believes the top programmes or CM are better than top GM's and >Kasparov, not which programme is best. I agree that CM is very competitive, on >a single processor, but it isn't the point I'm trying to convey to Ali. > >My point is, programmes haven't taken over the Grandmaster world, at least not >yet, and CM as strong as it is, certainly isn't in the same league as Kasparov, >or many other top GM's, niether are the so-called professional programmes, which >many feel are stronger. CM appears best at tactics or at least goes for >more tactics, and it is very good if not the best at mate finding. > >But to categorically claim CM is best and better than Kasparov, is simply >stupid. It's either a troll or gross ignorance. > >Alex Yes of course Chessmaster isn't better from Kasparov on a top single computer, PIV 3.06 GHz. But i believe it is on the same level with GM's on playing chess. Not in understanding chess or in having ingenius plans, not in "feeling" the position or having any adaptability to it's opponents, but in playing chess. And as we saw, Kasparov the greatest chess player now (and ever) didn't win, and even if he won the last game there will not be a clear win. You may say that in first two games his game was superior. Yes, but he made mistakes that computers don't. That's the difference. Top GM's and GM's have much more quality in their game, but they make mistakes, that's why the top programs are at the same level. And notice that computer strength is improving "dramatically" every year, while human abilities are the same and only a little more knowledge is being added.
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.