Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:25:21 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 13:14:52, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >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. True, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but your point is well taken. Terry...*Sigh* > >Otello > >How many more at home? Who knows? >> >>That _must_ be factored in except what can't be known:) Ok not so easy to factor possibly dubious results in some cases:( ....*Sigh Again*! >> >>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.