Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:44:05 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 02:26:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 23, 2000 at 23:11:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 23, 2000 at 19:26:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On October 23, 2000 at 17:49:25, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 23, 2000 at 17:17:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>I know that CST is "lonely" but why group others with it, and say that they >>>>>are based on common ideas? That is one giant stretch for computer chess. >>> >>>let us wait a few weeks - that you can test it too. and others have tested >>>it too. so that we can discuss again on the base of data we all can prove... >>> >>>the beta testers of the rebel team posted >>>results in this forum and got attacked here, mainly from a guy called >>>mogens... they were attacked because - as he said - their euphorical reaction >>>was not based on FACTS and not based on objective-judgement. >>> >>>now this thing won both championships very convincingly. >>> >>>i am sure you will find ways to oversee objective FACTS and judgement in the >>>future, if this helps you to prove your point of view. >>> >>>its easy: you only have to wait until people forget how you attacked >>>a bunch of people who HAD that thing, because you had NO data, and only >>>hear-said, but you know it better than these people. >>> >>>thats something very interesting. That OBJECTIVE and rational people, >>>who found their judgemant on FACTS, do have more insights in something they >>>never tested, than 21 other people who tested it for weeks on autoplayers >>>against all kind of programs. >>>and then jump on those people in an open forum and talking about >>>propaganda and subjective-meanings, campaigns and all the mud you throw... >>>when in the end you had nothing than an opinion. no single data that was >>>NOT posted by somebody else. or hear said. >>>you have not seen a single main-line, nor a score live, and you >>>felt yourself that kind of confident to jump on honest and >>>normal people. I would >>>call this a mastepiece of arrogance. a kind of mega-outing. >>> >>>>One small leap for Thorsten, one giant stretch for mankind :o)). >>> >>>i am sure you will find ways to make the people forget about your attempt >>>to throw mud on unguilty people, just because you did not like the facts >>>these people presented. its not up to you to decide what is fact and what is >>>fantasy, what is objective and what is subjective. >>> >>>If i have nothing, i would close my mouth, be silent and study in my >>>room, what others have to present. i would silently replay their games. >>>and when the programs comes out of the market, i would prove them wrong. >>>and THEN open my mouth. >>> >>>you did it other way arround. very fine. its your decision. >>> >>>but don't speculate that this will be forgotten too soon. >>> >>>>Mogens. >>> >>>gandalf plans. cstal plans. and gambit-tiger plans. all 3 mate-attacks. >>> >> >> >>Those programs couldn't tell the difference between a "plan" and a number >>two washtub. To imply that they "plan" is something so ridiculous as to not >>even warrant another comment. > > > >So Morphy did not plan either. > >You don't know how these programs work, but you say they don't plan. I know how _all_ programs work. And yes, I say they do not "plan" by any definition of the word that a _human_ would use. I will be happy to pick a game (when I have time) and show you why I can say this. I can tell you that it is quite easy to see how programs play the game... just look at the game and you can see why there is _no_ planning of any kind. I would hope you are not going to try to convince me that GT is now "planning" which means to first figure out what you are going to try to do, then only make moves that further that "plan". > >I'm sure you would say the same for many games played by human grandmasters if >you did not know the games were played by human beings. Not likely. It is not hard to see their overall plan for the most part, by looking at weak squares, weak pieces, etc. IE the KID is well known as to what black is going to try to do. Show me where GT "plans" anything there... > >I think the time for the Turing test applied to chess programs is coming. Take a >random collection of championship games from the same entity, and tell if they >have been played by a computer or a human chess player. I believe it is possible >that some chess programs can pass the test. I don't think it is even _close_ to happening. > >And I believe it is possible that some grandmasters fail to pass the test. :) > > > > Christophe > > > > > > >>>wait and see. >>>but don't try again to throw mud on people only because you don't like the facts >>>they present. this is IMO a contraditiction to your own claims and efforts >>>concerning FACTS, objectiveness and "based on the ground of data" >>>- phrases.
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.