Author: David H. McClain
Date: 04:44:47 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 01:25:01, Derek Paquette wrote: >We have Gm's crying left and right! >We have board members crying left and right > >"HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!" > >Its been decades since computers first started playing chess you would think >that eventually they would pass us, and now is that time for computers. If a >desktop PC chess program that is programmed by one man or two(sometimes) can >beat a super grandmaster (sometimes) you'd think a computer the size of a large >fridge, programmed and operated by a TEAM, and has a huge budget running so fast >that it calculates on a scale some can't even imagine that it would YES! beat a >human. > >We got GM's that are so far up on their horses they absolutely REFUSE to come >back to earth and realize that 'they' are beaten. Hydra outplayed adams fair >and square, it was obvious from game one. Yet...we still have people who are >die-hard grandmaster fanboys who say computers still don't 'understand chess' >well either they do or they don't, but whatever they are doing, if you call it >just brute forcing it, they are doing it better, well in compensation to >whatever micky adams or other Gm's its faced were doing. I cannot stand people >who cry foul over this, I especially can't stand some of the comments that are >on chessbase.com, like Nigel Short for example, what exactly is he saying? Is >he saying "yes hydra can beat any human, i feel bad for adams" or is he calling >bul@#@it > >Regardless, we got idiots asking "what does this prove?" > >If this was an arm wrestling competition, it would prove that hydra is a better >arm wrestler >If this was a 100m race, it would prove hydra is faster >If this was a god damn sweater knitting contest, hydra would be a better knitter > >So don't try and say it doesn't mean anything, hydra dominated adams, stepped up >to all other grandmasters, (topolov did ok, but it was a draw) no matter how >well Topolov did, who cares, it was a draw. The final standing is what counts > >"ah well he tried, lets give him more credit than the other guy who did JUST as >good and managed a draw" > >I cannot stand the fanboy wankism of some people who feel super grandmasters are >invincible because their lives exist within a very small bubble and can't escape >the fact that a machine thats worth a million bucks can beat them > >GOOD GRIEF Derek, I agree with you. It's time to get over the denial and "wishing and hoping" that a Super GM will win a match from Hydra. We all knew the era was coming that a computer would become the King of Chess. And it won't get any better in the future. Computers do many thing a humasn can't do. That time is here and now, so what? None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Rather than ostracize and ridicule Adams, perhaps more credit should be given to the Hydra team for their creation. We all know how good Adams is as a Super GM. He has proven it with his FIDE rating for some years now. Would Anand or Topalev win against Hydra? Who knows, but I doubt it. Perhaps one day soon we shall see. Then all the expert armchair analyists can post to their heart's content that they "should have or could have" played this or that move because their programs in front of them say so. I always cheer for the humans but the writing was on the wall very early for Adams in the Hydra match and I'm not losing any sleep over it. DHM
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.