Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:52:41 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 22:02:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 20:21:44, Matt Frank wrote: > > > >think realistically. The DB guys have more experience than any commercial >programmer by a _wide_ margin. Murray Campbell was working on computer chess >in the 1970's... for example... Don't underestimate their skills when >comparing them to commercial programs... they are _not_ behind at all, quite >the contrary. > >and no micro has come close to beating a kasparov in tournament play with a >million dollar prize on the line. Nor can one come close today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be the heart of your problem! Every time you talk about Microcomputers not competing with GM's you mention Kasparov! Very few people who know computers think Micro's can compete with GK. I can give you a list of GM's with FIDE RATINGS in the 2400's and a couple in the 2300 range. If you think these guys would be saved by the little GM after their name your are wrong. These guys would lose to a 2600 micro just like any other 2400 player. So why isn't this competing on a GM level? The truth is they are already competing with the lower rated GM's right now. You will have a hard time getting one of them to let you prove it at his expense! Right now, GM's all the way up to Anand and GK are taking computers seriously for the first time. Like you I've watched the computers move up in the ranks. When the first micros played in tournaments the "B" players were laughing at them. Pretty soon it was not funny to the "B" players and it was the "A" players turn. Now the GM's are nervous. It's getting harder to find GM's willing to put their prestige on the line even for money. Anand said never agian! I don't think they could beat any GM in a match at 40/2hr at present, although they would>likely win some games... and this _particularly_ evident when the GM is >'computer savvy' and knows how to 'play the machine' which is becoming more >common... Why pick the GM's that are computer savy? Why not the average GM on the street? Why not the lower rated GM's first? Just as you had to beat the "B" players before you got to the "A" players. Your point is always -since they cant beat the best GM's or the ones that are computer savy then they are not playing at a GM level. But today you slipped up and said "any GM". Wrong! Regards, Jim Walker
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.