Author: blass uri
Date: 12:38:19 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 15:19:12, Shaun Graham wrote: > >> >>Please play in a few big tournaments first. Once it became known that the >>program is playing, *everyone* will know from that point forward, and things >>will go sour. It's happened to every computer that has ever participated in >>many events. They start out with a bang, but once they became "known" and the >>players start exchanging info, the result is inevitable... >> > > >It doesn't matter if people find out, and start beating fritz! The point would >have been made, that when playing against the normal standard of grandmaster >chess Fritz is comparable with those players. That is the ultimate point and >purpose. We have computer chess so that we can see a high level of chess, and >also so that we can learn how to play typical chess(good chess), not anti >computer chess(bad chess). I do not think anti computer chess is bad chess Uri > Now of course i'm not advocating that anyone should >purpotrate a hoax. What i'm suggesting is the likelyhood that Fritz is GM >strength when it comes to what's important "typical chess". When i described >the method of secrecy to test it, i was not advocating anyone do it, i was just >stating what would have to be done. There is often a difference between what >you have to do to qaulify for what you call ethics, and what you have to do to >get an accurate scientific result. >>>> >>>>I know Michael, and you are correct. He is stronger then some GM's.
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.