Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:03:51 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 15:26:38, James Swafford wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 13:52:41, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>Dann: >>Am I wrong or there is a contradiction between these two sentences by you?: >> >>"But I am not ready to concede >>equal ability until it is mathematically demonstrated...." >> >>And then: >> >>"I am not arguing that computers are NOT GM ability either. Their true strength >>may be over 2600 on good hardware..". > >He's not contradicting himself. They may be, they not be... he just wants >"proof in the numbers". > >> >>BTW, I wonder if anything is demostrable with mathematical precision outside >>maths. >>(Oh yes, I have a decent degree in the stuff) > >Then you know the answer. :) Right. It's not a contradiction. I think it *likely* that computers play at GM strength, and will continue to do so. I do not think that it has been *proven* beyond any reasonable question. As data accumulates, the question will inevitably be settled, formally, mathematically, undeniably. It is also inevitable that computers will _pass_ all GM's in ability at some point, and the only reasonable competition will be themselves. It may even get the the point where we are unable to understand their moves, even with the analysis they provide. A good experiment is repeatable. There are a lot of variables in computer verses human interaction. The programs change, the programs learn, the GM's learn... One thing is for darn sure, though. Computers have *long* since passed the average Joe's ability to play chess. The debates about "Are they as good or better than GM's?" have very little in connection to how 'the rest of us' will fare against them. And may I reiterate: "GnuChess is not a pansy." ;-)
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.