Author: odell hall
Date: 16:11:43 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 18:05:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On February 13, 2000 at 17:42:24, Bradley Woodward wrote: > >>On February 13, 2000 at 16:55:12, John Kilkenny wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Why is it that some section of the computer chess community feel the urge to >>turn every victory by a computer over a GM into an attack on Bob Hyatt? > >Bob's in a position he won't be able to defend forever, since hardware advances >alone will eventually cause computers to score >50% against anybody. > >In the case of many arguments, you can argue one way today and the same way >tomorrow, and you know you'll be as right tomorrow as you are today. But you >can't argue that the tide is out forever, eventually you will have to admit that >it is in. And this doesn't mean that you were wrong about it being out a while >ago. > If i recall correctly a short while ago, Robert hyatt was asked about the strength of computers on various hardware, and he said that computers were 2450 on the Fastest possible hardware and that he didn't think the hardware issue was that important. He stated that the programs had to many "SERIOUS" Positional flaws, which makes the hardware irrelevant. So according to Dr. Hyatt there would be very little difference in performance against GM's whatever it is running on a pent 200 or pent600. holessingiaib >I think that Bob has a different definition of "in" than many of you do. But he >obviously knows that the tide will come in eventually. > >The sad thing is that when he does decide that as far as he's concerned the tide >is in, many people will declare victory, since for them the tide has been in >forever. But this is of course not true either. > >The tide wasn't in at the last Aegon (1997), even though some people were >starting to say that it was. I don't know if it's in yet, but everyone has to >watch out now or they'll get wet feet, that's for sure. > >bruce
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.