Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 11:05:36 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
For a case in point, look at the game ALterman-Fritz. NO GM on their worst day would get so badly outplayed....yet a computer did. On January 13, 2001 at 03:21:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 03:03:38, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 13, 2001 at 01:58:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2001 at 01:39:49, Robin Smith wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>>All that having been said, they are very likely GM's. But it will be proven >>>>>when it has been proven. Right now it isn't. >>>> >>>>"Proven when it has been proven", that is an intersting statement. It makes it >>>>all sound so definate, precise and conclusive. But if it is so precise, what is >>>>the definition of proven? The whole thing is actually quite silly, because it >>>>takes something that is inheritantly probabilistic and tries to make it black or >>>>white .... proven or unproven. Mathematically this isn't so simple as you seem >>>>to imply. >>> >>>With the current number of games played, the error bar is hundreds of ELO wide, >>>and the center is barely on GM level. If this were the level of certainty used >>>to stop elevators or control heart machines, there would be dead people lying >>>all over. My point is that the experimental evidence does not point to a sound >>>decision. If someone tried to prove a hypothesis in a scientific journal with >>>data that shaky they would be laughed out of town. Actually, it would never >>>make it past peer review and get published. >>> >>>This is what is simple: >>>The current data does not point to a reliable conclusion. >>>With more data a reliable conclusion could be reached. >>>The hypothesis cannot be concluded on the basis of the data at hand. >>> >>>All that having been said, the hypothesis is probably correct. But the current >>>evidence is inadequate to say that it is proven. >>> >>>Well, sure, we won't ever have 100% reliable answers. But we can have *GOOD* >>>answers. We don't have that right now -- not by a longshot. >> >>I do not like all this mathematical way to prove if someone is at GM strength >>because it assume a simple model that does not exist and it ignores data. >> >>If I see a beginner's game against a GM I can by looking at the moves say that I >>am convinced that this player is not a GM because a GM even in the worst day is >>not going to do a lot of stupid tactical mistakes. >> >>Your model only see 1-0 result and will say that we need more games to prove >>that the player is not at GM strength. >> >>People can have their opinion that they are convinced that a player is or is not >>GM strength even if there is no proof by a mathematical model because the >>mathematial model ignores a lot of data. > >Then propose a better model. I'm all for it. But to suggest that we can have a >better proof by saying "Looks like a GM to me." is not something that I accept. > >Now, I want to differentiate something. There is a difference between >acceptance and proof. To say that "I accept that computers are GM's because of >the prevailing evidence." is perfectly logical and sound. To say that >"computers are proven to be GM's." is not. > >I realize that (for all intents and purposes) I am alone in my view. I do a lot >of things that way. > >Like Spike Lee said, "Always do the right thing."
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.