Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 09:43:50 04/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2000 at 10:14:43, Walter Koroljow wrote: >The logic is not that simple :). Well, it is actually :o). Let's stipulate that a championship should >dtermine the best human player. We must now define "best human player". Two >definitions that seem plausible are: 1) the player with the best results against >humans, and 2) the player with the best results against humans _and_ computers. >Definition 2) sems perfectly reasonable. I would say that if two humans do >equally well against humans, but one does better against computers, then the one >who does better against computers is the better player. If two humans do equally well, why don't they play against each other? There's no logic in involving chess programs as they don't play chess. A 6-year boy or girl who doesn't know all the rules of chess is more congnitively aware of what he or she is doing than any chess program. >In this view, Fritz would be like the barriers and puddles in a steeplechase >race. It would not be a competitor. Perhaps if this is how Fritz was >presented, there would be less protest. Why not just see who is the fastest runner. That would be equally ludicrous. Best wishes... Mogens
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.