Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:46:29 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 16:07:17, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 04:06:20, Mark Young wrote: > >>Computer programs have now passed every test it seems that people have produced >>objections for to debunk the above results. >> >>1. Preparation >>2. Motivation >>3. Quality of players >>4. Money >>5. Match conditions against strong GM prepared players. >>6. Tournament conditions with strong GM players. >> >>Even with all the “holes” still left in the modern chess programs play, which >>the critics of GM level play for computers rightly, point out. It must be noted >>that the human side has only been able to produced 5 wins against these >>weaknesses, while the computer side has produced 18 wins against the human >>weaknesses. > >None of the mentioned programs can be attributed with GM strength based on their >individual results. And the term itself doesn't make much sense as have been >mentioned a few times before. > >>This begs the logical question: Which side has more “holes” that need to be >>fixed, Humans or Computers? > >Judging by the argumentation used, I would say humans. Fixing the trolling >nature of some individuals is another priority as far as I can tell. > >Mogens. I not trolling, but so what even if I am, I love to fish and will troll as much as I like....the above is fact, no matter how much you think it may be trolling or dislike the out come of the match and tournament results.
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.