Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 01:33:14 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 00:35:44, Slater Wold wrote: [snip] >Whether or not I believe computers play GM strength chess is no matter here. >What matters is that people who have given 30+ years to this field have more of >a right to an opinion than you *EVER* will. I don't think that he is more entitled of an opinion than any other here. The difference between what Bob says and some other says is that he does it in a scientific way. Jerry (among others) seem to be very emotional about this matter (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and are so fixed on their opinion, no matter what. They don't have the patience to collect enough data points before making a claim. Also they're not very critical when coming up with examples which 'prove' their 'obvious claim'. Ie Mr Ballicora pointed out some things why some/most GMs are not _that_ interested in playing against computers and therefore don't take it as seriously as playing vs humans. These things have to be taken into consideration, as well as many other things. Sadly, many (if not most) people fail to think that way and prefer the unscientific way. Computers showed very impressive performances over the years without us inventing new ones w/o enough data to support them. Sargon
This page took 0.01 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.