Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:12:44 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 08:59:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I don't agree. I _knew_ Tinsley. (...) >He was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that The final Chinook was better >than he was, because of the big endgame tables they had constructed. (...) Are you sure that Tinsley meant "better" or better? What is the performance of the machine if it can use the _perfect_ tables? What has it to do with playing checkers? Didn't Tinsley assume with all the rights in the World, that he was still the best player? Tables for endgames, at least in chess, had been calculated to the perfect end. BTW what is the specific achievement of a programmer, having a finite room of data, having access to a super computer, having a few months of computer time free for each round? What is the sense to compare such a perfect automat with a human genius? Since you were part of the branch as such, what gave you the scientifical kick out of it? I mean could we compare it with the creation of a logarithm table we all had back in school? Where is the creative element? And finally the same question as last year - what is the kick to let a machine participate with such help in human tournaments? The last question just to have it complete the collection. No nitpick meant, honestly. Rolf Tueschen
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.