Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: An Experiment that disproves Hyatt's 1000X NPS Theory

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 14:12:40 09/20/05

Go up one level in this thread


On September 20, 2005 at 17:08:45, Peter Kappler wrote:

>On September 20, 2005 at 16:20:54, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>You are confusing chess with gambling. In short: all these results from human
>>tournaments, where a single computer program is participating, are nonsense
>>because the humans cant adapt to the specific computerchess requirements. You
>>cannot play a computer with your "normal" human chess if you are not a super GM.
>>Anticomputerchess is a MUST to do. But that must be trained. It makes no sense
>>to play a single computer in a human round robin tournament. All this is trivial
>>and therefore the results are insignificant.
>
>Anticomputer chess is a myth.  For every game you show me where a human
>succeeded with an "anticomputer" strategy, I will show you 10 more where the
>same strategy failed miserably.
>
>-Peter


You are right, it's a myth. But not because it's impossible. It takes too much
time for human chess GM. So this is reserved to IM, masters and experts. They
showed astonishing results yet. But what you probably mean with GM anticomputer
stuff: they try it in a fly. Therefore it has no chances.



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.