Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:28:36 02/19/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2006 at 01:21:44, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On February 19, 2006 at 18:43:40, George Tsavdaris wrote: > > >>>If you believe so than try to see how long it takes to a program to believe this >>>move is interesting to be played... >>> >> >> Once again you use inductive logic..... The fact that all programs can't find >>THIS specific position, can't contradict none of my above statements! You should >>find other arguments for that....:-) > >I do not want to contradict your statements, but only show you one example which >show how little is the depth reached by computers to find good novelties. I did >not chose a special one, but the first one I saw on the new Chess Informant. > >After nearly 30 years of testing on computer programs and having checked with >them probably some several thousands of games (200.000 - 300.000; I did not >count them) I am 80% sceptical. > >I mean that they can find some novelties in some specific positions, but most of >the time they are not good for the reasons I told you. > >If you don't want to believe me it is up to you. > >I am not interested to teach things to people, but possibly only tell them my >findings. > >Ciao >Sandro I think that part of the novelties are not correct and only has practical value because the opponent is not ready against them. Top GM's can choose a move that leads to objectively slightly inferior position against correct defence when they are almost sure the opponent is not going to find the correct defence(and even if he find it they have good chances to draw the game because slightly inferior position does not mean losing the game). Uri
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.