Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:09:41 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 15:47:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >Once GM's actually try to use anti-computer tactics [in a sensible manner -- >closed formations, positional moves, etc.], they will completely stuff the >computer programs. Then, after the setback, the programs will gradually rise >until they are *actually* able to compete. In about 4 years, I think computer >programs may actually be at GM strength. > >I suspect that if GM's knew how to play them, they would absolutely knock the >stuffings out of computer programs. > >None of this has any mathematical basis. I am guessing, based on observations >between IM's who know the right tactics to use verses computers on online chess >playing services. Dann, Good points! I agree with you. This is a weakness of the programs. If a GM is prepared for a program and knows the programs weakness, it is over. Although the same maybe true for a human opponent of a GM (hmm?). :) By compete, do you mean win more than loose to a 2500 FIDE GM? Or is it something different? I am not sure what mean what people mean when they say compete. I am not sure what they mean by GM strength. Rebel century is close to 2500 (between 2450 and 2500) performance rating at match play. My opinion: The rating would be higher on an Athalon 800. I also think tournaments provide a better rating estimate than match play (for the reasons I stated above about preparedness). :) When I play, I consider anyone within 200 points competative. They have a good chance (not above 50%, but not zero) to win. Am I off base here? :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.