Author: Matt Frank
Date: 18:12:50 02/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 1999 at 20:14:33, Jeff Anderson wrote: >On February 01, 1999 at 10:35:33, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >>If we did it your way, Hiarcs might lose > >Whether or not Hiarcs wins or loses the match, would it not be a valuable win >for computer chess? Why is everyone so insistent on proving that Hiarcs and >other PC programs are GM strength, when they may not be? Just because this >specific creature, built to beat one GM, beats that GM, does not mean it is GM >strength. Even Fritz5 did great preparation I believe in the GM tournament it >one. I think it would be much for a sign of its true strength against humans if >it one went and play in a large American open tournament, where the oppoenents >are not know until a day, or perhaps hours before the round. > >Sir Conan Arthur Doyle: It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has >data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories >to suit facts. > >Jeff This program was not designed to beat this specific opponent!!! This software is designed to play chess at Master, plus, level on ordinary PCs, and to be flexible enough to adapt to an opponent. Unfortunately, this match was not arranged just as the program came available, and for that reason, the GM and I feel it is appropriate to study each other as much as we can prior to the match. I agree that this will be valuable for the chess world to have knowledge about. Matt Frank
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.