Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:05:16 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 16:00:40, Drazen Marovic wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 15:46:54, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 15:41:31, Drazen Marovic wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2001 at 13:39:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 11, 2001 at 11:43:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: >>>> >>>>> The sad thing is, if rebel had lost by a measly half point countless here >>>>>would still try to deny comps gm strength. >>>> >>>>There is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the assertion either way. >>>> >>>>The 1/2 point swing in the other direction (for the comp) is no different. But >>>>in any case, there are certainly not enough games to make a logical statement. >>>>Only an emotional one. >>> >>>False. I have something you don't. The experience of grandmaster play. A life >>>time of the study of the game. Non GM's do not beat experienced GM's in 6 game >>>matches Especially by what should have been by 2 full points, if not for the >>>graciousness of Schroeder in giving the last round draw. Sure it could have >>>been luck, an amazing flip of the coin. If you believe in that unlikelyhood. >>>There's nothing to talk about >> >>I'm afraid that you simply have a poor grasp of mathematics. >> >>And weaker players do beat stronger players by preparation. I'll leave it as an >>excercise for you to find examples. >> >>Consider this you HAVE NO, NONE,NOT a CLUE what GM STRENGTH IS. By your faulty reasoning and not understanding what GM strength is. You disqaulify countless GM's from ever being GM strength. Pillsbury, Sultan Khan, And a good number of current day GM's as well. I think it's time for you to get a grip. I know what GM strength is. I have played against one, in fact. But I am talking about mathematical demonstration (the kind that I prefer) rather than emotional demonstration (the kind that you are displaying). Not that one sort of choice is superior to the other. You are also wrong in assuming that I have assumed the NULL hypothesis. I have chosen neither side of the argument. IOW: I am not saying that computers are NOT of GM strength. I am not saying that they are. What I am saying (precisely) is that GM strength has not been mathematically demonstrated for computers. Furthermore, I also believe that eventually GM's will learn how to play these things and do a heck of a lot better against them. But I also believe that eventually the machines will grind GM's into powder. It is inevitable because of Moore's law.
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.