Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 18:02:24 03/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2002 at 14:31:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On March 25, 2002 at 14:02:47, Russell Reagan wrote: > >We all know computers are "really good", so unless we can >>say with relative certainty that computers are better than the best human >>players, do any of these matches mean anything? As far as I can tell, these >>matches just lead to the conclusion that "we don't know". >> >>What do you think? >> >>Russell > >On the contrary... these matches are a good indicator of the progresses made, >victories against the strongest human players are awards won by the programs for >their programmers that can be rightly proud of their creatures. > >w.b.r. >Otello That's nice for the programmer, but as far as determining whether or not we have reached the point where computers are better than the best humans, does it mean anything? I don't think computers are significantly better than humans yet, although it's only a matter of time. My concern is hearing all of the chess community up in arms about how no one can beat computers anymore because most chess matches are lost to computers these days, so it seems. It seems that while it's a nice achievement to beat a GM, the program's haven't beaten them in serious competition enough to show their dominance. But that's the question I'd like to gather opinions on, from people here who are more knowledgable about this than I. Russell
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.