Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 10:14:52 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 11:31:45, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 10:42:19, Chris Carson 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. 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. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>Much of the data you're refering to has holes all through it and is not >>>convincing. >>> >>>Terry >> >>Thousands of games are not needed. Medium effect size with power .8 single >>tailed only requires 52 subjects, even if the effect size was small (and it is >>clear that it is not), then only a couple of hundred games would be needed. >>This yeilds a confidence of 95%. >> >>There are plenty of games. > >There are plenty of games at ICC where GM's and IM's are still winning more than >losing to comps. That's out of control, many of them can cheat , who knows ?, Chris was referring to controlled events (with arbiters) I suppose. Otello How many more at home? Who knows? > >That _must_ be factored in except what can't be known:) > >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.