Author: John Kilkenny
Date: 13:55:12 02/13/00
Then again, Hyatt does FULLY imho admit that comps are GMs in the audio interview. He say something to the effect " Well if you mean that a GM plays it like a regular GM(in other words play REGULAR chess), then YES THEY PLAY GM STRENGTH CHESS! However once GMs learn their weaknesses they will be able to beat them". A shocking admission by Hyatt, because the arguement has always been that Comps are GMs at regular chess play! If GMs could learn the weaknesses of Kasparov and Kasparov had no way to adjust for each opponent. He'd get beaten like a drum too. It would just mean that he isn't GM strength against anti-kasparov play, though at regular chess play he would be. In other words in a blind test of say two players playing, where the Human didn't know his opponent was a computer (example Allwerman case), and plays regular chess, the comps will play at GM strengtho. So at regular human vs human chess comps ARE GM STRENGTH, something which has always been known by the enlightened and now admitted to by the great prince of the "Comps are not GM" camp R. Hyatt. OF course if someone is able to know all of your weaknesses, and you can't adjust or know all of that individuals weaknesses in particular, such an opponent will have a major advantage. Thus is the life of computer chess programs. This however, is irrelevant to the point that at comps are GM's at regular chess play, when the human plays the comp as if it were a human. So if you released an "Allwerman-Cheater" on to the swiss system scene, and he was able to quickly play in a large number of swiss events where GM norms were available, all around the world he would quickly get the the norms required. Hyatt's camp breaks to it's knees :)(Sorry had to add the drama at the end it's been a long hard fight hahaha)
This page took 0.03 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.