Author: Terry Presgrove
Date: 02:58:56 12/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1998 at 00:41:07, Prakash Das wrote: >On December 06, 1998 at 19:59:52, Terry Presgrove wrote: > >> >> There are human chessplayers very good at blitz and have held their own >> against top programs playing on ICC-" > > Do you know whether this IM you mentioned had "held his own" in past? Some >strong players like Anand for example, has played hundreds of games against >Fritz. So the next time he plays Fritz in real life in an exhibition match, he >gives it a good game. The point is this is learned practice (for want of a >better phrase). Playing computers at blitz time controls is not really a fair >game for humans. Humans are not fast brute "thinkers". They are however good at >in-depth thinking. Nature did not design the human mind for tera giga mega bits >of information processing a second. No? > >>mentioning ICC is a stated fact not > > Well, I don't see how the mention of icc really helped me to understand this >crafty clone any better :-) > simply stated where the game was played :) >>advertisement "(particularly at 5 3 0r 5 5 time controls). Heatstroke is run on >>a P233 relatively slow by todays standards. > > P233 is still the fastest of fast computers that are affordable in rest of the >world. 53 or 5 5 is certainly better than 5 0, or 3 0, or 1 0. but it's still >"fast" chess. Nearly all top computers excel humans at this speed. > Sorry.....but here in USA I just saw an ad for PII 300 Celiron complete system for 500.00 after rebate .......I can't speak for the "rest of the world" but can speak for where I live the USA and particularly playing chess on the ICC P200's are not the fastest of the fast and I stand by this. > MY point is merely that todays >>crafty has come along way and is very competitive at blitz play > > Of course. No one said it hasn't. That's only natural isn't it? From the time >when Claude Shannon proposed a chess playing machine, we are bound to progress. >And crafty has been worked on for nearly (or greater than?) 30 years. > > and on faster >>hardware in my view is of IM strength at slower time controls. > > That's my point. Computers are still weak at long time controls. In the hands >of top humans they are putty. > hogwash.......Rebel10 kicked Anands butt at blitz and at even longer games gave him all he wanted. > Blitz is a game >>of its own and must be viewed as a distinctive game within the broader game of >>chess. And Crafty has demonstrated over time its at or near the top under the >>gun of top notch competition in the arena of some of the best chess blitz >>players in the world. To say that a programs accomplishment in blitz (means >>nothing)"not valuable data" underminds the value and nature of the game of >>blitz chess! > > Umm.. nowhere did I dismiss the "value of blitz". We all use it for practice, >testing etc etc. Computer/human blitz chess is not as valuable as a data set as >long games. I stand by this. >you stated was not valuable data which simply means "of no vlaue."......implied > >> TP
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.