Author: chandler yergin
Date: 03:16:51 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 06:07:37, Tony Nichols wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 05:44:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 03:39:06, Tony Nichols wrote: >> >>> I know I might make some people mad by what I say but someone should say it. >>>Today's chess programs are not nearly as strong as the top human players. >> >> >>I do not agree. >> >> >> All >>>this hype about Hydra being 3000 elo is a joke. >> >> >>Humans are not 3000 elo but I agree that Hydra is probably weaker than 3000. >> >> In fact, All the elo claims for >>>computers are a joke. We have seen many examples of class players drawing >>>against these programs. These same players would have no chance of drawing even >>>an average GM(no disrespect). >> >>I disagree. >> >>I believe that if players with rating near 2000 play enough games against GM >>they will draw or win games. >> >>People can play many games against computers when they cannot do the same >>against GM's. >> >>I also know about cases when a player with rating under 2000 beated a GM and I >>know of another case when a player with rating of near 2100 beated a GM. >> >> >> These high level man vs machine matches are just >>>promotional gimmicks. The top players won't play anti-computer chess for many >>>reasons: >>>1. ego. The players want to beat the computer with normal(manly) chess. They >>>also don't want their achievement to be devalued. >>>2. money. If you show the weaknesses of the program and systematically beat it >>>you certainly will not get invited to another match. >>>I find it strange that people who approach computer vs. computer tournaments in >>>a very scientific way are the same people who scoff at posts made by players who >>>regularly draw against the top programs. Perhaps this information upsets their >>>fantasy? I don't know. >>>I for one am an avid user of chess programs and I find them invaluable. However, >>>even I (1850 elo)have to guide the programs along the right paths during >>>analysis. Could you imagine me telling Kasparov that he's missing the point! No. >>>The programs perform as well as they do because they are very good at tactics >>>and most importantly they have huge opening books. I know this is a >>>controversial topic but if we really want to test the strenght of programs, then >>>have them play against strong humans without opening books. Many here would not >>>even consider it. >> >>Of course because humans use opening book. >> >>If you want to be fair with no opening book then give them to play a different >>opening position when both sides do not know the position before the game so >>they cannot prepare theory knowledge. >> >>Uri Exellent idea Uri! I too have thought that the next 'level' perhaps of some Tournaments might start from a Tabia, where Theory leaves off, and real thinking begins. It's not really intersting for me to watch a Match where the Top Players are using their Openings 20 moves deep etc.. It would be more fun watching Basketball too, if the basket was raised 3 ft, and make these guys really earn their $$$$. ;) Chan >Hi, Uri >Some humans use opening books. Some humans write them. A very few create real >theory. No human uses opening books during the game. As far as 2000 players >beating GMs. I don't think this would happen in a match as opposed to a tourney. >Many times GMs take risks to score more points. >Regards >Tony
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.