Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 08:52:04 10/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2005 at 19:51:47, Terry McCracken wrote: >On October 06, 2005 at 19:35:23, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>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 > >You are joking yes? Well that would really favour the grandmasters;-) >I also think their egos wouldn't let them accept these terms. > >Terry Well...people are saying that computers just can't play at a GM level because the GM loses interest and messes up the game. So give them 1 take back. They'll still lose. Not all losses are due to dramatic errors like overlooking a combination. Then it becomes much harder to argue that computers aren't GM strength. If you bend over backwards to accommodate human players and they still lose, well... 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.