Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 16:35:23 10/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2005 at 11:53:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >He may be dismissing computer chess too lightly, but I've watched players on ICC >who were NOT GMs and obtain winning positions against these "silicon brutes", >and often they're losses are on time. The games were 15/0 or small time >increments. These favour machines, still I've seen them burn but escape due to >the bell. > >There are people here who do in fact beat programs, and we know this to be >true. > >Anand never took the matches between Kramnik and Fritz too seriously or Kasparov >matches with Deep Junior or Deep Fritz. If you really look at those games, you >can see both Kramnik and Kasparov dominating these beasts, but for what ever >reason they messed up in even and also won positions, more than once. >So those matches don't mean as much as you think. Sure the machines were strong, >but in no way better than either of these grandmasters. > >Hydra is the only _real_ exception, and even here, GM Nichols with a computer >was beating it at corr. GM Topolov had it beat and let it slip to a draw. >There's a stronger ver. now but I suspect a top GM on a good day who plays >computers often, could win a game, even a match, but I suspect after GM Adams >poor performance we might not see such an event. What a shame. > >Machines are NOT completely dominating the top humans or very experienced >computer players, at least not yet. Say what you will, but the losses are often >due to oversights that make the machines look better than the actually are. > >That's my two cents. > >Terry Maybe humans should be allowed to take back an oversight when they play computers. At least 1 oversight per game. More than that and they deserve to lose. Roger
This page took 0.01 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.