Author: Dana Turnmire
Date: 06:23:10 10/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2002 at 08:42:36, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >The argument(s) about comps using TB's and opening book's have heated up. It's >as if the question of "are comp programs better that super gm's" has been >answered and the humans are crying fould, excuse making yak yak yak. > >The postings read like the future to me, (10 yrs from now ?) where a result >might read comp beats World champ in a (n) game match for the world >championship. Oh my oh my will the unfairness of the comp's program be cried. > >Here is the issue! Can a human beat a machine at it's best. Not can a human beat >a machine with handicaps from its natural superior one's/zero's capability. >It's a machine, there is nothing unfair making the bloody monster behave at it's >best. > >Let the Human GM's play it at it's best, probobly loose (future) and accept the >fact ! >Thanks >Wayne I can accept this, however, if I remember correctly when Kasparov played Deep Blue the IBM team actually changed the moves for each opening before each game. I accept the opening book as part of the program but let the machine use its book without a human grandmaster manipulating it before each game. If Chessbase wants to sell its program on the basis it beat the world champ then the program they sell the public should be the same program advertised as beating the champ as the one in the box. I still have a problem with humans finding the weakness of a particular human and manipulating the game in that direction instead of the program itself finding it with its own opening book, endgame database and learning features. It's obvious the computers will eventually be supreme.
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.