Author: Daniel Jackson
Date: 21:31:30 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 22:27:18, Derek Paquette wrote: >On August 24, 2004 at 22:16:44, Daniel Jackson wrote: > >>On August 24, 2004 at 22:09:55, Derek Paquette wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2004 at 16:36:00, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2004 at 15:23:00, gerold daniels wrote: >>>> >>>>>good afternoon..remember the engine is only as good as the brains behind it. >>>>>:>) ....good luck gerold. >>>> >>>>You are definitively wrong, since SMK, and Frank Morsch are not even withing 300 >>>>rating points close to their excellent programs. >>>> >>>>Jorge >>> >>>You do not need to be the greatest at chess, >>>only great at programming >>> >>>As Amir and Shay have said several times in interviews. >> >>They keep a strong GM on their team, and he's not there for looks:) > >exactly my point, >they are patzers at chess, they admit this, >but they don't care, >they can program like mad scientists Yes they can! But they still need the GM consultant, but if a GM could program like a mad scientist, and knew what to add and what not to they would in the end produce the better software. Given supercomputers, they could add more knowledge without hurting their program, if they are careful of course, else they'll slow the machine too much. When machines understand chess like humans, and can emulate thought they will be more consistent then any GM...not better, more consistent.
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.