Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:35:40 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 23:28:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 22:06:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>IE let's place a bet that I can flip a coin and get 10 consecutive tails. >>I _know_ that if I build a "robot flipper" it will force you to pay off the >>bet, because if I flip enough, 10 heads _must_ eventually come up, otherwise >>the coin is not "fair". That is how a computer will get its "norms". It will >>just plug along and eventually enough humans will "break" against it in the >>same tournament and it will do well enough to pull it off. I believe _any_ >>program could do this today. >> >>I mentioned that back in the 1980's, Fidelity entered multiple machines in >>the US Open, at the same event. Some did horribly. One would invariably do >>well. That was the one you read about on the front of the package. :) > >They are all doing well in all of the events though. They really aren't. This dates back to the 1980's USCF events, thru Aegon (yes some did very well, but for every one that did well, there was a "lemon" as well. And the "lemons" were not always "amateur" programs either. > >I think that you are being pushed down the Bataan penninsula, and eventually you >are going to run out of bullets and things to eat. It has to happen eventually, >since you have hardware advances killing you, at the very least. All of the >programs are doing well against humans. It's kind of silly to say that they >aren't on par. I haven't quite said that. I have said "the computers are on par (or perhaps even a bit better) when the humans play real chess." That is quite a bit different from what you implied above. Roman is one good counter-example that has ripped most everybody when he plays "the style". > >You need to get out of this "programs aren't GM's" thing gracefully at some >point, probably soon. You've got a bunch of people up in arms about it, and no >matter whether or not you've been right at some past point, at some future point >you will be wrong, and you will have to admit it, and all of these guys you are >arguing with will use that as an opportunity to try to make you eat shit for >about a year. > >bruce (a) I don't care about "a bunch of people up in arms about it." Opinion is just that... (b) The time _will_ come when computers are legit GM players. When it does, I won't mind saying so at all. Won't mean that I was wrong in 2001... just means that in 200x it finally happened.
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.