Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:10:11 06/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1999 at 19:00:57, Andrew wrote: > Out of curiosity: How top-ranked humans perceive level/quality of games >played so far? Any of games played carrying theoretical value or novelty >'useful' for humans? And what does CCC members think about it... Where would you >place this event in terms of fide tournament rank? Also: which game was most >'humanlike' so far.... (or maybe some of those questions fit CCC oppinion poll >after WCCC is over) > In general: What is the level of separation between top computer event and >'human chess'... Somehow I find 'human chess' and 'computer chess' going slowly >their own directions. But then I may be biased. > > trolling....:) > -Andrew- My opinion (+ 2.00 will get you a cheap cup of coffee) is that chess is chess. Humans play better then computers at long time controls, G/30 and faster has the computers leading (some top GM players have been beaten by top programs/fast HW at this level), G/60 is roughly a toss up, GM's that play well against computers seem to still have the advantage (few examples at this level) and G/120 or longer (40/120), GM's have the advantage. There are exceptions at every level, so someone will post I found this game and it disputes you. Oh, well, just my observations. :) I have yet to find a single perfect game. This means that a computer can find some mistake by a human, or a human can find some mistake by the computer. Ofcourse this is postgame analysis and it is easier to find mistakes with hindsight. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.