Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:59:12 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 10:00:46, Andrew Williams wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 09:55:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 09:06:42, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>Over the last month, there have been a number of such huge arguments. >>>I've always thought that it's a bit strange to get hung up on this >>>question. Five years ago, it was clear that the best micro programs >>>were not at GM strength. And presumably if you wait five years, PC >>>programs will have proven beyond any doubt that they are at GM strength. >>>Surely the time we happen to be living in is the best and most enjoyable, >>>because we're perhaps seeing a moment of transition between these positions. >>>Why then the need to convince anybody of anything when you can just sit >>>there and be proved right by waiting? Is there some particular benefit to >>>being able to say that PC programs are GMs *now*? >>> >>>Andrew >> >>If your prog wins from a top-GM at 40 in 2 level, then you >>can sell for millions, whatever the name of your prog. >> >>So the reasons are obvious. > >Yes, but the people here who are arguing on that side don't have >programs to sell, as far as I know. > >Andrew listening to a handful of CCC dudes is not very smart indeed. on the other hand the commercial propaganda of the companies after a year or 30 of course is working quite well. If you say in 1980: "this program is a GM soon cuz it beated an IM now". then in 1985: "it's at gm level cuz it beated a GM!!" then in 1989: "kasparov loses at blitz against genius!" Of course no one checked out the horrible games, kasparov lost and that's it. that he also would lose from loads of strong IMs at blitz is no argument of course... Anyway, the commercial propaganda is 99% of what you see reflected here. Commercial propaganda works, that's why so many money is put into it, and with good reason. 30 years of propaganda clearly leads to *something*. And indeed there are GMs who manage to lose somehow from a program, to then completely annihilate me a week later. Then i wonder always: "why do they lose from something that's having so many gaps, but why do they win from me so easy?" Probably most GMs are so focussed upon playing other humans, that's how they got GM, that this commercial aspect in combination with their fear for the unknown is leading to disaster for them at slow level against programs in matches where they are not paid to win. That then again feeds new propaganda and new 'lemmas' spreaded by companies. And i'm not going to blame them, i would do pretty much the same if i beated a GM in 30 0 rapid at what was it, Munich? Best regards, Vincent
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.