🚀 go-pugleaf

In rec.games.chess.computer StanB <stanbooz@home77.com> wrote:

> Robert Hyatt <hyatt@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in message

>> In rec.games.chess.computer Ron Moskovitz <rmosk@netcom.com> wrote:
>> > In article <8kpork$tbj$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> > Jeffrey W. Eggenberger <jeffegg2@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>It would depend on if they are using the endgame database or not.
>> >>
>>
>> >  Again, it's not so simple. A computer equipped with endgame tablebases
>> > will play certain known positions perfectly. On the other hand, it'll
>> > still play unclear endgame positions poorly. Better than it would
> without
>> > them, but computers are still genrelly poor endgame players.
>>
>>
>> I think that is way over-simplified.  I have watched many games where a
>> computer simpl out-played a GM in an endgame.  Years ago, no.  But today?
>> Computers don't play a weak endgame at all. They are surely stronger in
> the
>> middlegame, but I don't know of anyone that would say they are weak in the
>> endgame.  "weaker"?  Yes.  "weak"?  Not at all...

> On a slight tangent, when do you think computer cheating will become as
> pervasive in OTB as it is in internet chess?

> StanB


Good question.  I can see the day where you have to play in a room
with a magnetic shield around it, with no windows.  No electrical power
that someone could pipe in a signal on.  Metal detectors everywhere.

Chess might become an "Orwellian-type game" one day.  :)





-- 
Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences
hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170