Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:09:37 08/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
I believed him because he played very well, but still made tactical mistakes when not in time pressure, which seems un-computerish. I suppose it is very possible he is a good player who was using an engine to analyze the position when it got hairy. I was suspicious of his time usage (he never used less than 4 seconds a move). I thought over some things he said, and now am _very_ suspicious because: He said he'd never heard of Crafty, yet he had winboard. He claimed to have friends who were C++ geniuses but thought it was impossible to write an engine in C++. He asked me what my program thought of a certain position but later pretended not to know that engines scored positions. This seems rather hard to believe. If I continued thinking, I would probably dredge up a whole bunch of other inconsistencies in his story..... He pretended not to be knowledgeable about computer chess, but kind of shot this story down when he said he had winboard. :) I guess I believed him because I _wanted_ to believe him. To watch a human play excellent blitz chess is a lot of fun, because there aren't many out there (almost none on FICS). I was wowed by the idea of a human-blitz-computer-killerm even though he seemed more suspicious after I talked to him than before. :) James
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.