Author: Walter Koroljow
Date: 07:14:43 04/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2000 at 15:53:53, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 19, 2000 at 15:22:46, Mike S. wrote: > >>Gentleman, welcome to the 19th century... wrong direction? > >I guess there's two kinds of people. Those who believe that the future can't be >affected and does nothing. And then there's people that believe in changing the >future however futile it might seem. I belong to the latter category. It has >nothing to do with dwelling in the past. A computer program can't be declared >national champion and is thereby an unecessary addition to the championships. >Simple logic. > >Best wishes... >Mogens The logic is not that simple :). Let's stipulate that a championship should dtermine the best human player. We must now define "best human player". Two definitions that seem plausible are: 1) the player with the best results against humans, and 2) the player with the best results against humans _and_ computers. Definition 2) sems perfectly reasonable. I would say that if two humans do equally well against humans, but one does better against computers, then the one who does better against computers is the better player. In this view, Fritz would be like the barriers and puddles in a steeplechase race. It would not be a competitor. Perhaps if this is how Fritz was presented, there would be less protest. Unfortunately, I agree with Bob Hyatt's gloomy assessment (below) of the consequences of Fritz' participation. I doubt that method of presenting Fritz would make much difference :(. Cheers, Walter
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.