Author: KarinsDad
Date: 13:09:31 07/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 13:18:23, Paul Richards wrote: >On July 02, 1999 at 12:48:37, KarinsDad wrote: > > >>So, people come up with the idea of "tests" such as yours and make the >>implication that programs play better chess. > >I understand what you're saying, and it's not easy to draw the line and say >what's fair and what isn't. But playing things that you wouldn't play against a >human is an admission that you don't want to face the computer's strengths. Again, I could make the counter proposal that the program plays so poorly in certain types of circumstances that the easiest way to beat it is to play inferior moves against it and win. Why should a superGM play a well known line against the computer and into the computer's strength in a G25 game when the GM could easily make a tactical mistake when he could play a line where he knows that he does not have to work as hard and that the computer may crumble easier? >That's certainly fair as far as playing goes, but if you want to claim that you >are totally superior then that shouldn't be necessary. The strength of >computers is difficult to classify because of the fact that some positions might >be played like a weak player and others like a super-GM, which doesn't happen >with humans. However I don't think that a GM's ability to exploit such >weaknesses is always due to his chess strength, a good part of it is a freebie >by virtue of simply being human instead of an inanimate object. Fair enough. But, the GM still has to play the game. The rest of us would lose. So, I guess it does not matter how he wins, but just that he wins. That's why he is a superGM and I am a patzer; because he can take advantage of his opponent's weaknesses as well as the weaknesses in the position. KarinsDad :)
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.