Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 18:51:46 05/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 19:49:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >It's not about science, it's about dead horses being beaten for years. I'm not >going to defend either side. I think IBM approached the problem with their >marketing team at the point, and I think Kasparov blew up like a >high-performance racing engine that was revved for an extended period while >under no load. But it happened three years ago, and most of us tired of hearing >either side of this long ago. > >bruce > Please don't think for a second that this has to do with any secondary motives when I write this here: In the light of the results of our debate here I can only alarm you to take the science question very serious. You put a lot of energy into your work. But without a minimum of control of the output of the machines no human will seriously participate in challenges or matches against your program. I am astonished that you could interprete my contribution as boring and stupid. With my questions I tried to lead your attention to the necessity to find new methods, new paradigms to save computerchess as such. And as fast as you can. Look at the internet. Serious championships won't happen because there is no possibility to guarantee honest play without unallowed helps. Don't wait until computers are excluded from chess because the problem of cheating isn't openly discussed. Perhaps you can now understand why I took the old event as an example. R. Hyatt still today is convinced that Kasparov asked unallowed, ugly questions; and at the same time R. Hyatt explains that nobody could do anything against cheating...
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.