Author: Rex
Date: 04:48:10 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
What this means is that Computers did_not loose_any_game. A first grader will tell you that would most likely mean computers had the upper hand ver. Gulko. Remember computers undefeated...Gulko WINLESS!! think about it. On March 25, 2002 at 14:02:47, Russell Reagan wrote: >I was thinking about what computer vs. human matches really mean. If Gulko >doesn't get a single win against the 4 computer programs, does that mean >anything? Does that mean that the computers are generally stronger? Or does it >mean that in the course of 8 games, he made 2 less than optimal moves? If the >latter, I don't believe that means anything as far as whether or not computers >are better than the best humans yet. > >So Kasparov loses his last match against Deep Blue, Gulko will likely lose his >match against the computers, and what if Kramnik loses to Fritz? Does that >really mean anything? We still have a fairly small pool of games from world >class players vs. computers. You could even throw Gulko out of the "world class" >category, but someone else should make that decision, because I have no idea of >his playing level compared to a Kasparov of Kramnik. > >It seems like it would take regular competition between world class human >players and computers for the consensus to be that computers are better than the >best human players. 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
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.