Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:22:44 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". And how could there be proof - if computers do never participate in average competitions of tournament chess? The inflation of Elo-numbers has no valid basis. Without competition human chessplayers did not even _begin_ preparations to develop methods of anti-computerchess. Then it would be obvious that a general GM-level on tournament time control is a big myst. (BTW the actually good performance of Hiarcs in Argentina is a good proof for my statements. Or is anyone here present who wants to declare that the masters there had trained on the _specific_ machine before? Or that these masters had a specific incentive to learn alternative chess for machines the whole year over? Of course not.) So - without competition with _motivated_ and _trained_ GM our machines can't develop GM play. Comp vs comp chess can't constitute GM chess. That is why SSDF Elo numbers are based on circular logic without GM chess validation. Rolf Tueschen > >> >>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. :) > > >> >>My best >>fernando
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.