Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:47:29 06/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 1999 at 09:37:19, Michael de la Maza wrote: >The machines are up 1.5 - 0.5 and in the remaining three games, the computers >all have, at minimum, decent positions. There is a legitimate possibility that >the GMs will not win a single game. > >I think that the Ferret/Vaganian game is the most interesting from the computer >chess point of view. Against a human, Vaganian would have had a "crushing >kingside attack." However, Ferret is not a human and so it defended with elan >and precision and is now two pawns up. > >The day will soon come when GMs are forced to concede that they can no longer >launch successful mating attacks against computers when there are a substantial >number of pieces on the board. Boy do I disagree. You just haven't seen GMs do this very much yet. But of all the weaknesses computers currently have, king safety is at the _top_ of the list, not the bottom. Computers will always have decent chances, but attacks can and do work all the time. IE drop over to ICC some time with your favorite program and ask a GM to play you a few games to see what I mean. Or even a few IMs that I can think of over there that are _deadly_ with slow- developing kingside attacks that have to be parried almost before they start...
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.