Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:40:37 06/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 1999 at 09:17:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >This is the point I have tried to explain to you several times. What "GM" >would lose such a game to a 2200 player? Can you think of one? I see _all_ >programs lose to such players on ICC. Some repeatedly to humans that are >not even 'titled' by FIDE. And so long as this continues, I have a _hard_ >time thinking of the programs as "GM" players... There is a point to this but it's important to avoid taking it too far. Computer strengths and weaknesses will not match perfectly with human strengths and weaknesses no matter how strong the computers get. It's like declaring that until computers can solve that famous locked pawn problem where the game is a draw despite huge extra material (the weaker side simply has to avoid taking a rook, and then hide behind the pawns), that they can't be masters. Clearly they are masters of some variety despite being less than instantly able to solve that problem. They are very strong in some areas and weaker in others, and it might not be true that they have to be strong in *all* areas to succeed. It is a matter of determining the degree to which their weaknesses can be exploited by humans. It's getting harder for the humans all the time. bruce
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.