Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 08:52:15 10/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2005 at 00:55:25, David Mitchell 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. > >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 I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, that isn't what I meant. I also have a great deal of respect for these silicon beasts. Best, Terry
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.