Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:49:13 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 10:26:24, Dann Corbit 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*?
>
>It isn't new at all. It comes up every 4 or 5 months and always leaves a steamy
>trail of refuse.
>
>I think the big problem is that people don't even know what they are agueing
>about [IOW -- they are argueing different points -- how can they ever reach a
>conclusion?]. Also, some people think it will be a big victory when programs
>are proclaimed as GM's. Personally, I think the book is still out but that
>probably the best programs on fast hardware are at that level. Until it is
>mathematically demonstrated, it's just a theory which gives both sides plenty of
>ammunition for the firefight. In any case, the arguement will pop up again
>after this one dies down. It's just like "void main" on news:comp.lang.c and
>all the goofy attempts at "proving FLT" on news:sci.math that just pop up over
>and over again.
>
>Actually, it's fun for a while [maybe 3 or 4 posts] but then it gets boring.
>
>May as well just learn to live with it.
According to my CCC biorhythm, this thread is already on the decline. The next
will be what program is the absolute best (peaks at the full moon), and with the
new solstice we should be seeing a 'new' "Diep is deeper than Deep" thread, and
the new irrefutable evidence of this fact. This evidence will inevitably be
further facts on how stupid and ignorant DB was (and its creators stuck in the
programming Dark Ages), and how it really couldn't see further than its nose
(=reset button). The fact is, Kasparov really only lost to a souped up version
of Chess Challenger, except that DB couldn't even talk. Pfff....
Albert
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.