Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:18:42 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 06:49:41, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 00:27:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It is a classic experiment. The question: "can a computer beat the world >>champion in a match, at tournament time controls?" To answer it, you pit a >>computer against the world champion in a tournament time control match. The >>'noise' about "he should have had more games to study" or "he should have been >>given the printouts" or "he should have had this or that" are all reasonable >>points, but they had _nothing_ to do with the question being asked. And >>the 'experiment' was set up to answer that question, and that question only. >>I don't see how it can be thought of as "invalid"... >> > >What you call _noise_ is most interesting. For a scientist it's clear, that you >had to _control_ all the noise to be able to get an answer to the original >question. The question "can a computer beat the world champion in a match, at >tournament time controls". Or did you understand the question this way: "beat >the champion under the control of the 'time'"? :) How would you, as a scientist, handle this? Demand that he be injected with prozac or something before each game? Add in a bit of sedative to calm him down? I don't see how you can control your _opponent_, only yourself. I believe the question being asked/answered was just as I stated it. Kasparov turned things into a zoo. Not the DB guys.
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.