Author: Chessfun
Date: 07:04:32 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2002 at 09:21:04, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 27, 2002 at 07:20:09, Chessfun 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. >> >>Please name just one. The most well known Roman himself under the Jrlok handle >>has a score of +1 =0 -5 against Rebelrex. >> >>Sarah. > >Those are biltz games, and if 3/0 them bullet, 3/0 is still blitz, however thse were 5/12. and comps. are better at bullet >then almost anyone! > >Why should I do all the searches, it is up to people who claim that comps. are >indeed better than all humans except for the top ten or so IE 2700+ in the world >on (PC's no less) to prove it not me. You made a statement. If your statement is challenged it's up to you to prove you are correct. >"Extraordinary Claims need Extraoridinary Evidence"! My point above. Sarah.
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.