Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 18:03:41 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 23:16:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >They didn't neglect a thing. The way they played Kasparov was the way _all_ of >computer chess has been playing games, for years. We change programs between >rounds. We all show up at ACM tournaments, or WMCCC tournaments, or WCCC >tournaments, with code that is new and has not been seen by others before. I don't understand the meaning of the argument. Because they did it like always they didn't neglect a thing? Perhaps there is a difference between computer tournaments and a match between a machine and a human chessplayer? > >They did nothing 'different'. They didn't do 'bad science'. Believe what you >want, but if you want to make statements, at _least_ make them based on fact. >And the facts of the match are pretty much public knowledge. > > Let's not get into too personal arguments. Could you explain then why they at first aggreed and then denied in the question of the logfiles? Do you see the disturbing effect the denial had on Kasparov's play? What had all this to do with the strength of the machine? Do you think that the final result of the match had something to do with the denial? Would you please explain why the result of the match is valid? What has been shown? The strength of the machine or the psychological cleverness of the operators? :)
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.