Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:08:24 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 14:53:12, william penn wrote: >On June 05, 2001 at 14:30:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 05, 2001 at 13:51:32, Mark Young wrote: >> >>> >>>You do want to argue the point, and to say that anyone is unreasonable that does >>>not agree with you is not a good agruement. There is much game data to back up >>>that some programs are GM strength. The problem you have is you treat all >>>programs as being just one program, as there is no difference between say a >>>Crafty and Fritz, or a Shredder and Junior. I think this is a mistake when >>>looking at the data. I do understand why you do this as for us to be right only >>>one program needs to show it can play at GM strength which Junior has already >>>proven. >>> >>>Many players, chess pros, and programmers agree that computers are 2500+, but I >>>see you feel we are all unreasonable. >>> >>>So I guess you are Right...There is no point. >>> >> >> >>First a quick comment: Several months ago a "super-GM" played Crafty several >>consecutive games on ICC. And he got totally shredded. And he chatted with me >>for quite a while saying, basically "I have never seen anything like this. The >>program played like a human world champion. How have you done this and why >>aren't you selling it?" OK.... Good Comment. >> >>Later that week, he chatted again: "What did you do to the program. I watched >>it play a GM friend of mine and it just got squashed with no counter-play. Your >>changes really weakened it." When I told him "no changes whatsoever" he was >>dumbfounded. And he couldn't understand it. >> >>Here is what he (perhaps yourself and others) do: You see the huge anchor chain >>on an aircraft carrier, and say "wow, that thing could hold up half the world." >>And for each naval anchor chain you see, you say the same thing because it looks >>_so_ massive. >> >>I, on the other hand, look more carefully and notice one link that is nearly >>rusted in two.. And _I_ realize that not only can't it hold up half the world, >>it won't even hold up the anchor. Because the chain is only as strong as the >>weakest link. If humans pick on the computer's strong links, they will get into >>much trouble. If they worry around the weak link, look out. >> >>So long as those weak links are there, computers are going to have trouble. >>And _every_ computer has more than one weak link at present. _no_ exceptions. > > > > Your Problem, BoB Hyatt is you live in your little small world on Icc All your >arguments are based in your very limited experiemnces there. YOU have no >substantial expeirience at long time controls, i notice crafty plays mostly >blitz. You can show no PUBLIC examples at 40/2 were computers are not playing >Grandmaster Strength. What are we sopposed to do, Ignore the Super Gm Results of >Computers? Show me the evidence that they are not playing grandmaster strength, >other then some fleeting conversation with , some unidentified grandmaster, the >question is always for us to prove that they are Gm, well i think chris carson >has done just that. Why don't you show the PUBLIC evidence that shows they are >not, other than your OPINION, which by the way is like a asshole, everyone has >one. Your problem, on the other hand, is that you are a brash young punk with nothing to contribute. So you post lots and lots of crap. And say nothing useful (or in most cases not even intelligible). I didn't give my "opinion". Someone _else_ gave a Grandmaster's opinion after playing a game and crushing the program. At least, if you are going to post garbage, make it accurate garbage, if you can do that. You haven't been able to for years, of course, so I doubt it will change now.
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.