Author: Jouni Uski
Date: 06:02:54 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 08:44:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > It has happened already many years ago! For couple of GMs were shown games from Aegon and thyy can't identify computers... Jouni
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.