Author: martin fierz
Date: 02:37:54 10/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2004 at 05:30:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 16, 2004 at 05:14:56, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1956 >> >>What do you think about David Levy Statement: >> >>"Above all, we learned in Bilbao how difficult it is for a GM to play the best >>moves often enough to win against a top program. When two GMs play each other, >>each can expect his opponent to make some inaccuracies during a game, so that >>one mistake will often be balanced by a subsequent mistake from the opponent. >>Programs are not like that. The best programs play at a consistently high level, >>so much so that, after a program leaves its openings book, only very rarely will >>it make a move that gives much away. A human player, even though he might be >>able to play 2750 level chess for 95% of his moves, is somewhat more fragile, >>and for the remaining 5% of the time he will often play the second best or third >>best move when only the best will do. It is moments like that that frequently >>determine the outcome of a GM vs computer game – give a beast a single chance >>and it will pounce." > >Kramnik and kasparov did tactical mistakes against machines and it is better if >they do not play chess against machines again. i disagree. kasparov showed a very good understanding of how to play against computers against X3D fritz. he blundered in one game, true, but remember he was playing with those goggles... kramnik also showed good understanding of how to play against machines, only when he was winning bigtime he decided to show that he could also beat machines in wild tactical positions (that's what i believe of course, it's nothing official). big mistake. but if he sticks to boring chess, he would be a great anti-computer player. >Smirin is the last human to beat the machine and for some reason the sponsors do >not suggest him another match. it's rather obvious that "sponsors" are often the computer teams themselves, and they want to look good, so why play against GMs with experience in how to play computers? much better to play "the kid" who plays games with his gloves off and gets a beating. on the other hand i must say i found it very interesting to follow those fighting games - much better than kramnik-leko... IMO the only sensible thing to do is to make the prize for the GMs 0 for losing, and $$$$ for winning. then we will see whether they still can beat the machines. i used to be quite confident that they could, but i'm not so sure any more. cheers martin
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.