Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:39:17 09/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2002 at 13:00:05, K. Burcham wrote: > > >when I first learned that this statement is used and accepted often, I had to >laugh. >when anyone makes this statement, they are admitting that programs have enough >problems that if a GM has the program before the match, that these problems can >be discovered, and used during the match to play for the win. >I find this amusing. The interesting match is when humans do not get a copy. I could understand giving humans a copy if computers proved themselves to be superior in normal conditions but computers still need to prove that they are superior in normal conditions. I can add that the only way to beat humans who get a copy before the match is by some non deterministic behaviour otherwise the human can learn the right games before the match and the right games can be even games of the program against itself. Uri >I would give Kramnik 25 copies of the program on the hardware that will be used >during the match. Then let Kramnik play to what he thinks he has discovered is >the program's weakness. Then the programmer can go back and try to improve the >program. >"I have weaknesses in my program that in the last ten years I have not been able >to improve on". "So I would like to fool everyone in believing that my program >can beat the GM by not letting him play my program before the match". > >I think everyone here understands why some say this. I just think that those who >have been taught to think this is the way it should be,are incorrect. > >In early developement stages in 70's, 80's, etc., I can understand why some >would say this, many blunders and mistakes back then. Sometime we will see the >day that these people will not say this anymore. Maybe too early to expect this >for now. > >kburcham
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.