Author: stuart taylor
Date: 00:21:59 07/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 16:31:43, Dann Corbit wrote: > >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." They are definately of super gm strength if the gm doesn't have anti-computer awareness. S.Taylor
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.