Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:19:01 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 23:58:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 22:49:32, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 14:05:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I think the other question is the issue... can GT withstand DB? Remember that >>>in the original games played against commercial programs in 1997, DB was >>>crushing them all. And it was crushing them all by playing kingside attacks. >>>That was Hsu's main criticism of Genius and Rebel.. they were totally oblivious >>>to the coming storm, until it hit. The games were not endgames. They were >>>middlegame crushes. GT seems to be no better than anybody else at seeing >>>attacks against itself. In fact, it often self-attacks by being too aggressive. >>>I think against DB that would be suicide. >> >>I think I missed seeing the PGN's of these games, Bob. I don't doubt that there >>were some games played by something against something, but I don't think that a >>third-hand evaluation of these matches is worth anything, and I think that the >>best thing to do would be to forget that they were ever played. Anything said >>about those games is not just hearsay, it's hearsay about hearsay. >> >>bruce > > >I agree. But sometimes "hearsay" is all there is. And _many_ people heard the >hearsay details from Hsu or Campbell at talks they gave. They both reported >that the major problem was micro king safety. Which is not a surprise at all, >IMHO. I had watched the micros get rolled by attackers over and over and >over on ICC... > >Suggesting that GT would do better than others is a speculative discussion. I >have watched a lot of GT games as well, and while it does play very >aggressively, it does so in many cases at the expense of its own king safety. >Against an opponent that has good king safety itself, this can be dangerous, >which was my point. My point is that it's impossible to make any claims about any of this without making people extremely angry. The reason they get angry is that there is no way to refute conclusions about something that was only seen in private, and there isn't even any way to publicly question the conclusions, because they aren't even your conclusions. This isn't the way things are supposed to be. I refuse to sit in the shadow of that thing for the rest of my life. I think the thing to do is grant it the accomplishments it actually achieved, but refuse to extrapolate by giving it the world championship by acclaim from 1999-2099. We never got to test the thing's capabilities. That's not our fault, it's IBM's fault. 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.