Author: Eddie
Date: 12:28:16 06/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 1999 at 15:18:50, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On June 20, 1999 at 12:47:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >I understand your reasons, but I'd like to know something. In your opinion, >the recent tie computers/GMs does mean anything at all? If so, what? Well, from my point of view :-) I hope the super "Grand Masters", such as GM Vaganian, keep up the good work! Congrats to you Mr Vaganian! Go Grand Master's GO!!!! :-))
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.