Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:14:10 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 19:11:43, odell hall wrote: >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. That is correct. However, I don't know how computers will do on a pentium 6000, for example. 2x-3x faster isn't terribly significant. 20-30x becomes more 'interesting.' I intend to be 10x faster by this summer. I'll see what that does. > > > >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.