Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 18:21:00 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 20:42:01, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 03, 2003 at 19:52:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>Yes. Of course. Alas, the mean computer experts have invented the 6 games >>"matches" and that is too short to exploit and harvest. Let them play 48 games >>with the same machine of course. Promissed? >> >>:) >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >If Garry is the best player of the two he should be able to win without a 48 >game disection of the program. > >What would the conclusion be if he needed 48 games to win, that GK can only win >if he can completely pridict his opponents moves? > >It's kind of like playing poker when you can see the other guys hand. >Cheating is another word for it. > >Of course _if_ these had been the rules I think the programmers would have >devoted a little more time to the development of learning heuristic, so it may >not be a very big issue after all. >I mean it's not that difficult to have the program change a few of the >parameters from game to game, ie. simply loading different "personalities" by >random. > >-S. i Cannot resist commenting to this illogic stuff. Playing 48 games would only wear out a human super GM Heck Kas may have a problem with just six games. Look how long he has to go into deep thinking with his clock running. The silicon thing never tires. How long a period do you expect a 48 game match to played over ? 1 year, 6 months, 3 months ? Bye the way DJ would perform better in a standard tournament if DJ was just another entrant. What are the other GM's to do. Spend value preparation against DJ in such an event ? Of course not, they will spend their valuable time preparing for overall peers in the tourney. It has already been done, bye the way (don,t remember which program(s) or what tournaments, at what time. My memory only remembers that it has happened. Also give DJ credit for what it has done thus far. How many of you guys expected this result. DJ has played at a very high GM level. And do not offer a response that he is playing under some devious pre-arranged agreement to make the match exciting. Heck his standing with his peers and the world is involved here after loosing the IBM match. That is my 2 cents worth. Thanks Wayne
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.