Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:32:05 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 17:20:18, blass uri wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 16:59:32, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On July 15, 2000 at 16:45:19, ShaktiFire wrote: >> >>>Chris Carson has documented dozens of games at standard time control >>>of computer play vs. GMs. >>> >>>I won't knit pick...this or that program, this or that hardware. >>> >>>But in the last 2 years, dozens of games have been played. Computers >>>vs. GMs at standard time control. >>> >>>Ratings can be calculated with these games. The more games played, >>>the less uncertainty in the rating. The rating indicated, based >>>on these dozens of games is over 2500. >> >>You can't include games from all types of programs on all types of hardware >>under different game conditions (tournament, exhibition or something else) and >>reach a sound conclusion. Given the number of programs and hardware >>configurations, you can't say that computer programs as a single entity are of >>GM strength. You need an identical setup, software and hardware, and then >>conduct enough games to reduce the uncertainty sufficiently to ensure a >>confident rating above 2500. The scientific method is testing using a stable and >>unchanged setup. > >If you have many programs that have performance of more than 2500 you can be >sure that the best of them has more than 2500 rating. > >You can do it without identicl setup,software and hardware. > >You will never get identical setup of software and hardware in the near future >so by your logic you cannot claim that programs are GM level in the near future. > >I disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. For each program, they have strengths and weaknesses. All programs have bugs in them too. To clump them all together is unsound not only mathematically, but for the obvious reason that you don't have enough programs from one program to find out how to attack it. Each program must be decided upon its own merits. Or if we say that "Computer programs are GM strengh" then TSCP is a GM. Absurd? Of course. And why not -- because we have a lot of games by this program to know better. But if we make a few changes to TSCP and make a multithreaded version and put it on a 32 CPU alpha it might be a GM. Was the original TSCP on a PII 300 MHz machine now a GM? Clearly not. Lumping them together is an act of desparation. Either that or a lack of clear thinking. A program on a given hardware setup may or may not be a GM. You cannot lump them all together -- it's simply ridiculous. It appears to me that people will absolutely grasp at straws to support their idea.
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.