Author: Chessdaddy
Date: 21:03:27 02/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2000 at 17:39:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > >:) Isn't this rather Rude of you? > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>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.