Author: James Robertson
Date: 22:57:31 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 01:50:29, allan johnson wrote: >On May 01, 1999 at 01:11:57, James Robertson wrote: > >>On May 01, 1999 at 01:07:34, eric guttenberg wrote: >> >>>It is a telling commentary on the continually growing accomplishments of >>>the top chess computer programs that one of the top ranked grandmasters in >>>the world can lose a match to one such program by 5.5-2.5 and have >>>somebody hail it as a great victory for the human player. >>> >>>eric >> >>You missed the point of my post completely. :( >> >>James > >James If you saying that because Polgar won a couple of battles in the tactics >department that computers may not be as strong in that area as lots of people >are suggessting then what are the strengths of the computer that enable it to >clock up a 5.5-2.5 scoreline?Time pressure on the human,superior >positionalplay,mistakes made by the human? I'd be interested to read yours and >other people's opinions. >Rabbits Well, for starters I was talking about G/60, not the whole match. It is my understanding (I may be wrong), but if you only count the G/60 games, Polgar drew 2-2 with Fritz. Polgar chose to play very wild, tactical games, and it is well known computers are superior tactically to humans. Now if Polgar can draw with Fritz in what has always been considered the computer's domain, it seems significant. Of course, 4 games mean nothing, but it is still interesting. James
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.