Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 07:42:53 06/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2005 at 10:13:55, Madhavan wrote: >This guy claims Adams can beat hydra,he has produced enough nonsense in his >article to chessbase,since we all know that match is probably going to end in a >draw either by match fixing or playing few game and later gambling it to equal >score. > >In any case Hydra is favourite. Nonsense? Why so disrespectful - and just how do you read his article? I find this: "...he *might* achieve a *draw*, that means 3:3. **Maybe** he can even beat Hydra, if..." You must be very young... /S > > > >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462 > > >Some deficits of Hydra were also seen in the recent PÂL/CSS-Freestyle Tournament >on playchess.com, where the sea monster didn't even reach the quarter finals. > >Nickel: Well, this is of course a hot potato since Hydra as in correspondence >chess had to play against strong players, amongst them even some FIDE >grandmasters who could use engines as in "advanced chess". I was also surprised >by Hydra's failure, but on consideration I realised that all programs including >Shredder 9, Fritz 8 and Junior 9 which were also running on strong machines, got >into trouble, when playing without human advice. Probably this wouldn't have >happened with shorter time limits, let's say 15 minute games or even shorter, >but in one hour games (one hour per player plus 15 sec. per move), human chess >competence can already show its qualities in tandem with engines. By the way, I >also participated in this very interesting event and didn't manage to reach the >quarter finals either. However in the process I met Hydra again and played a >nice game which was drawn after 102 moves. The sea monster must have gotten >tired of attacking my fortress without success. > >Once again what is your bet on the match Hydra-Adams...? > >Nickel: Okay, it will very hard for any human being, but as I always hold on for >humanity, and especially as Michael Adams is a gifted positional player, I think >he might achieve a draw, that means 3:3. Maybe he can even beat Hydra, if he is >able to completely control his emotions and avoid any unclear complications. >Should this be so, he could succeed where Kasparov failed when playing Deep Blue >eight years ago. This would mean that humans have learned since then even though >the computers didn't get weaker, but obviously stronger since that time. Hydra, >don't forget, is supposed to be stronger than good old Deep Blue!
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.