Author: blass uri
Date: 02:28:11 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 1999 at 23:35:35, Jeff Anderson wrote: >I am simply saying that it would be no great feat for this program to win, if it >is nurtured to face one particular GM, when if this same program were to face a >player inferior to the GM, might do poorer because it has not spent 6 months >preparing. As I said before, the master section in a large open tournament >would be a true test of the program's strength in relation to humans. >It is like what Kasparov said about Deep Blue after he lost. He said that Deep >Blue would get crushed in normal tournament play, because Deep Blue was a >machine taylored to defeat Gary Kasparov and only Gary Kasparov. > >Also, how will Hiarcs get to display its true strength, when someone, for >example, has prepared theory 30 moves deep in GM x's favorite queen's gambit >line. Indeed it could be said if Hiarcs one the match, that it was not due to >the programs great strength, but to all the preparing humans did before the >match. I do not expect the GM to play one of his favorite opening. I think that a weak program has no chance against a GM and the opening book is not important because the GM can get it out of book in few moves. He can play even 1.a3 and 2.h3 and win. I believe that the time before the match helps the GM more than the computer. If you want to check if computers are GM strength it is better if the match will begin tomorrow when the GM has no time to prepare. You can ask GM's if they agree to begin tomorrow a match of 6 games against a commercial program(one tournament game per day) when the loser will pay 20,000$ to the winner. I think that if they believe that commercial programs are clearly weaker than them they will agree to it. Uri > >Jeff
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.