Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 08:36:13 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 09:48:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 09:30:46, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 26, 2002 at 07:34:46, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On March 26, 2002 at 04:33:14, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>> >>>>On March 26, 2002 at 00:35:44, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>>Whether or not I believe computers play GM strength chess is no matter here. >>>>>What matters is that people who have given 30+ years to this field have more of >>>>>a right to an opinion than you *EVER* will. >>>> >>>>I don't think that he is more entitled of an opinion than any other here. The >>>>difference between what Bob says and some other says is that he does it in a >>>>scientific way. >>>> >>>>Jerry (among others) seem to be very emotional about this matter (which is not >>>>necessarily a bad thing) and are so fixed on their opinion, no matter what. They >>>>don't have the patience to collect enough data points before making a claim. >>>>Also they're not very critical when coming up with examples which 'prove' their >>>>'obvious claim'. Ie Mr Ballicora pointed out some things why some/most GMs are >>>>not _that_ interested in playing against computers and therefore don't take it >>>>as seriously as playing vs humans. These things have to be taken into >>>>consideration, as well as many other things. >>>> >>>>Sadly, many (if not most) people fail to think that way and prefer the >>>>unscientific way. Computers showed very impressive performances over the years >>>>without us inventing new ones w/o enough data to support them. >>>> >>>>Sargon >>> >>>Careful about Science vs Faith. There is plenty of data points to prove the >>>strength of computers vs humans. I work in the field of human behavior research >>>for a living, no ties to the commercial programs and have studied Human vs >>>Computers for a long time (many years). I do not care what the strength of a >>>program is (higher or lower), however, they have proven themselves to be >>>significant and at a 2700+ level on hardware that can be purchased for under >>>$2,000. >>> >>>Humans must perform significantly better than the top programs over a period of >>>200 games or more before you can say with any scientific certainty that they are >>>below 2700. The programs have proven themselves to be very strong over a large >>>number of games at 40/2 (even more at faster time controls). These games must >>>be in open viewing competition, tournament rules with an arbitrator. >>> >>>Ofcourse everyone has the same entitlement to an opinion (based on faith). I >>>hope the GM's do better, I have faith that humans can adapt quicker than a >>>static program on static hw, however, science and a lot of data show that the >>>top programs are 2700+ and are very dangerous opponents and they will only get >>>better with improved s/w and faster hardware. >> >>As a scientist I don't know how you can claim factually computers and software >>of today perform over 2700 at 40/2 T/C's. > > >They already did it in more than one tournament. > >Tiger and Deep Junior got more than 2700 performance at tournament time control. > >In the case of Junior at least one of the opponents(adams) did special >preperations and beated Junior in blitz at the same opening but he discovered >that Junior does not do the same mistakes at longer time control so the game >ended in a draw so you can learn that programs are not always better in blitz. Uri give me a little credit and don't tell me things that are common knowledge, it's insulting! > Unless we're talking about Deeper >>Blue, then I would tend to agree but not with absolute certainty. >> >>The "Verdict" is not "Out" yet and this attitude, can lead to premature >>conclusions. It's damaging. >> >>This is what happened with Deeper Blue in '97 and has fudged the science. >>Deeper Blues' win over Kasparov happened before it's time due to many reasons >>and "Pure Science" got second spot. >> >>The public and media are "Ignorant" even the "Business" people at IBM, except to >>"Turn a Buck", but the best players and even experts "Understood" why Kasparov >>really lost and it wasn't due to Deeper Blue bieng the better player. >> >>Believe it or not except for game 6 which hardly could be considered chess for >>obvious reasons, Kasparov outplayed Deeper Blue. >> >>I'm not going to re-hash the details. It's been discussed far too many times >>here already and people seem to remain unconvinced. Too bad. > >I do not think that people here believe that deeper blue was >better player than kasparov. > >> >>Until computers play thousands of games against GM's at 40/2 T/C's for "High >>Stakes" then much of the data is questionable. > >The data is questionable also when the GM's can buy the programs in order to >learn their weaknesses when the opposite is not possible. > >It was not the case with deeper blue and kasparov could not buy it. > >Games of programs that are not freeware and not commercial are the only games >that are not questionable. > >Uri And Deeper Blue is not questionable? Terry
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.