Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:31:43 07/15/00
I think that there may be some broad confusion as to even what the GM-Comp strength arguements are about. Nowhere in my posts or in most of the other "it's not decided" proponents will you see the statment "Computers are not GM strength." What I am arguing over is jumping to conclusions. The reason I make such a big fuss over it is because science and mathematics are often incredibly counter-intuitive. Consider a disease. We'll call it 'fooble' because the real name does not matter. Now, we find a chemical which we believe will cure fooble. So we get 10,000 fooble patients and give them the pill. Sure enough 4 of them get better! You might think that because it definitely happened (and more than once -- four times!) that this was evidence that the chemical helps. But it turns out that of the group given the plain sugar pill, also 4 people were cured. Sound unrealistic? It happens all the time. When we make an observation that matches what we *wish* to be true, it is very much human nature to assume that this observation proves the hypothesis. But such an observation is not a proof at all. Confirmation of a hypothesis is something that must be done statistically in order to be sure that the outcome is really true and not just what we wish it to be. Many persons might think that it will be some kind of victory against persons such as myself or Dr. Hyatt when computers are proven to be of GM strength. (And I am certain that at some point they will be). Actually, it will be a victory for science, and hence both for myself and for Dr. Hyatt also. I believe (and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong) that Dr. Hyatt has not said anywhere that Deep Junior is not of GM strength. He has only said that it has not been adequately demonstrated. I think he is still leaning towards 'they might not be that strong' while I am leaning towards 'they probably are that strong' but in either case, the arguments you see are not about the conclusions themselves, but about jumping to the conclusions and assuming that there is adequate proof to support those conclusions. At this stage, the hypothesis has not yet gained theorem status. That does not mean the hypothesis is incorrect. Only that it has not been adequately demonstrated. In math, there is a latin abbreviation Q.E.D. which means basically when translated, "The thing which was to be proven has been adequately demonstrated." We're not there yet. Those that say, "But look at the proof!" are simply unaware that such things do have statistical measures. These measures can be firmly founded, and used to demonstrate the thing which is to be proven. To be of GM strength does not mean "To have a scintillating performance." Many people have scintillating performances but are not of GM strength. To be made a GM, one must have broad excellence over a long period of time and also to have several scintillating performances. Is Deep Junior a GM (Or even a super GM?) The best answer is "Maybe."
This page took 0.02 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.