Author: David Dory
Date: 02:34:22 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 02:57:36, Russell Reagan wrote: >The argument goes both ways... > >Kasparov is special because he has proven his ability over decades. The same can >not be said for Deep(er) Blue. Until the machine proves it's ability to beat the >best consistently, it's not to be deemed better than the best humans. The >machine and it's supporters either need to "put up or shut up". Since the >machine isn't scheduled to be playing anytime soon, I guess it's time to shut up >:) > >"Simple as that." > >Russell DB2 beat the human world champ - and * please * don't even THINK about "statistical validity". It's a MATCH, not a statistical study!! In the Olympics, you run your marathon race ONE time, just one. That decides who wins, who loses. Easy as pie! If you run the 100 meter dash in 8.0 seconds, you set the world record! You don't have to run it 100 times for "validity" or to be "deemed" best. You do it once, and you're the world record holder. DB2 won the match and I'm not "deeming" anything. I'm saying this is something no other program/system has done. That's why DB2 is tops, and every other program is a wannabe/wishIwas. Until they can, they're not the champion in man vs. machine chess. They may very well be the WCC or WCCC champs, though, and that's great. And as soon as they beat the human chess champion (which I believe is much more difficult than beating a bunch of other chess programs), in a match, they'll be as good (or better) than DB2. * Until then, nyet! (though Vincent posts ad nauseum to the contrary). That's OK, I just LOVE reading fiction. :) And Uri: Deep Thought and Deep Blue (one), have NOTHING to do with this topic. How long Kaspy has played chess, how well esteemed he is, etc., are irrelevant. * and here in CCC, we'll debate THAT long and hard. :) David
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.