Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:56:54 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 1999 at 00:30:28, Matt Frank wrote: >On February 02, 1999 at 23:09:24, Michael Ginat wrote: > >>Timman recently criticized this form of chess (see one of the latest issues of >>New In Chess) and I agree with him. He analyzed one of the games in Kasparov's >>match and convinced me that Topalov would have played better without the >>computer. There's no doubt F5 is not yet strong enough to make a difference for >>over 2600 players. Maybe if used as a database to check out openings. If it's >>true Anand has agreed to play such a match I'm sure it's for publicity purposes. >>This is much easier for him than say playing a simultaneous blindfold match, and >>probably more lucrative! >>regards > >I haven't seen the article by Timman, yet I wouldn't be surprised if Topalov (or >even Kasparov) might have been able to play better without the computer, >especially with longer time controls. If I remember that match was played >game/hr, right? In any event players will have to learn to best utilize the >computer in such a match. I do think that players will develop skills in best >utilization of their computer assistants in such matches over time. In fact >Kasparov lost a game on time control, because he relied to heavily at the end on >the computer's analysis when he should have ditched the computer at that point. Padon my ignorance on the subject, but aren't the GM's free to ignore the computer's advice if they know better? If so, I do not see how the computers could make them play worse. E.g. they play a gambit and the computer says "ce=-1" they just ignore it.
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.