Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:39:14 02/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2000 at 16:13:16, odell hall wrote: >On February 14, 2000 at 10:47:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 14, 2000 at 02:42:16, Alvaro Polo 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. >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>It is sad, but I sure hope and believe that Bob is intelligent enough not to >>>start an argument with them, explaining the true facts, once they declare >>>"victory" against him. >>> >>>Alvaro >>> >> >>What I find so very amusing is that my "opinion" matters so much to a very >>few. (IE Odell Hall, etc, on the computer is a GM issue). If they believe >>so strongly that a computer is a GM, so what about my opinion? I don't worry >>about theirs. I would think they wouldn't worry about mine. But somehow my >>opinion prevents them from sleeping soundly at night or something... >> >>The world is a strange place at times... >> > > > > Well if you don't think that your opinion should carry any weight then why >continue to Sell yourself as the All-knowing, Never Wrong , Computer chess >Expert. You speak constantly as if everything you say is written in stone, and >react arrogantly and aggressively when anyone challenges your assumptions as if >they are all facts. Now you are surprised because someone may actually give your >ideals some weight?? The World is indeed a Strange place ! > > Yes it is. And you continue to prove it so. :) > > > > >> >> >> >>>>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.