Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 10:28:04 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 10:18:05, Otello Gnaramori 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 > >Hi Andrew, >I think that one of the most interesting argument in Computer Chess Club is to >observe and comment the computers achievement in this "Art" or "Sport" or "Game" >,whatever you like. > >Regards. Yes, I quite agree. In my view there's *nothing* more interesting than watching a strong player versus a strong program at long time controls. Call me shallow if you like, but this is the main reason why I deplore the new FIDE time controls. Just as we are becoming able to construct useful arguments about programs vs GMs, one of the variables of our "experiment" changes. I was just wondering why there seems to be a major push to get PCs acknowledged as GM-strength or whatever, *now*. Andrew
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.