Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 07:39:28 03/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2002 at 10:12:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 09, 2002 at 09:21:09, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 08, 2002 at 12:08:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 08, 2002 at 08:20:41, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On March 08, 2002 at 05:06:31, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 07, 2002 at 20:09:25, mike schoonover wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>i can see where this thread is going to turn into a real >>>>>>pissing contest. :) >>>>>>i wish the best to gulko.he his a fine chess player. >>>>> >>>>>I do to, I have always enjoyed his games and respected his play. >>>>> >>>>>>he's the best sentimental favorite so far. >>>>>>go G!give them processers stack overflows. >>>>> >>>>>Give em hell, hope he wins and takes them down. >>>>> >>>>>>regards >>>>>>mike >>>> >>>>Sorry to say this but wishful thinking will NOT help Mr.Gulko, the only thing >>>>that would help him is if the organizer dicides to use a slow computer like a >>>>Athlon 700 Mhz. But at this time control even a mere 700 Mhz would tare him >>>>apart. >>> >>> >>>Maybe or maybe not. I watched a GM "dismantle" a very fast AMD box last >>>week 6 games in a row... and 8 out of 10 games overall. And the time control >>>was a very slow 3 0... >>> >>>The GMs are dangerous. _very_ dangerous. To think otherwise is very foolish. >>>Chess is a _long_ way from being solved by computers... >> >>All GM's are dangerous, plain and simple. >> >>You're correct, most people here haven't a clue about top young and often >>relatively unkown GM's that play Bullet Chess and often beat comps. on ICC. >>Not to say older and even some old GM's are not impressive! >>Beating them at 3 0 is most impressive! > >This is not my opinion > >It is more easy to set a prepared a trap at home before the game for a 3 0 game >then to prepare a trap for a slow time control game. Yeah Right! > >I will be more impressed if they can beat some non deterministic good machine 8 >times out of 10 at 3 0. Well I guess this stands to reason, but Deeper Blue would even be more impressive! > >It is possible to do it by doing a random changes in the evaluation. >The program is not going to play significantly worse if you do small random >change in the weights of the evaluation(not more than 5%) but it is going to be >harder to repeat a game that the player prepared at home and I suspect that part >of the games that players win against machines are games that they prepared at >home based on their own copy of the same program(learning cannot help because it >is a different copy). > >Uri Uri Nothing is of *Your Opinion*! I addessed this to Dr. Hyatt, not you. Most of what you said is useless! Terry
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.