Author: David Mitchell
Date: 21:55:25 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. As Uri mentioned, there are lots of traps that CC fall into in blitz. But this is a contest. If you win, you win. No need to disparage the way (within the rules), that you do win. As CC matures, and systems become even faster, those traps become fewer and fewer. > >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. Topolov may have had a stronger postition - but he clearly didn't "have it beat". Somehow that phrase just makes no logical sense. You can never lose a game you've "won", and it shouldn't be thought of as somehow a "loss" to the CC, followed by some kind of "gift" from the GM. >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. > The CC's look "worse" than they play, not better! Somehow you give me the impression that an oversight by a GM is a small thing, whereas a mistake by a CC is a TOTAL BLUNDER by a total idiot piece of "furniture". In reality, they're just exactly the same. A blunder that loses a game, is a blunder that loses the game, whether by exalted GM or "lousy hunk of plastic and silicone". Dave
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.