Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:02:47 03/25/02
I was thinking about what computer vs. human matches really mean. If Gulko doesn't get a single win against the 4 computer programs, does that mean anything? Does that mean that the computers are generally stronger? Or does it mean that in the course of 8 games, he made 2 less than optimal moves? If the latter, I don't believe that means anything as far as whether or not computers are better than the best humans yet. So Kasparov loses his last match against Deep Blue, Gulko will likely lose his match against the computers, and what if Kramnik loses to Fritz? Does that really mean anything? We still have a fairly small pool of games from world class players vs. computers. You could even throw Gulko out of the "world class" category, but someone else should make that decision, because I have no idea of his playing level compared to a Kasparov of Kramnik. It seems like it would take regular competition between world class human players and computers for the consensus to be that computers are better than the best human players. We all know computers are "really good", so unless we can say with relative certainty that computers are better than the best human players, do any of these matches mean anything? As far as I can tell, these matches just lead to the conclusion that "we don't know". What do you think? Russell
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.