Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 02:56:42 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 05:34:22, David Dory wrote: I once saw a guy in a game programming forum making fun of newbies who posted with lots of exclaimation marks, and just stated things they retrieved from their ass. His post was very funny, but I never personally came across one of these people, until now... >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! It does determine who wins and who loses, but it does _NOT_ determine who the best is, because like you said, it's just a single competition, which in the big picture doesn't mean anything. >If you run the 100 meter dash in 8.0 seconds, you >set the world record! You also get your gold medal taken away for cheating :) >You don't have to run it 100 times for "validity" or to be "deemed" best. You sure do. If you only run it in 8.0 seconds once, you'll never even make it to the qualifier for the olympics. Put a little thought into what you say before you type please. >You do >it once, and you're the world record holder. Again, this is clearly false. You have to run MANY races just to even get to the olympics. Even _IF_ you make it there, you still have to run several races to win the gold medal. >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. 100% WRONG...you don't win a single 6-game match and become the best. If you don't defend your title, you lose it, plain and simple. If you believe that you can win it once and keep it, then Fischer is still the world champion and Deep Blue didn't beat the world champion. You can't have it both ways. >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. * It is debatable whether Kasparov was even world champion during this match. If you want to say Deep Blue was the human-computer world champion, great for Deep Blue. Just make up whatever title you'd like and slap it on Deep Blue. "TSCP is the Russell's Backyard Human-Computer Champion!" Who cares about a title I make up? Who cares about a title you make up? Answer: no one (except you apparently). >Until then, nyet! (though Vincent posts ad nauseum to the contrary). That's OK, >I just LOVE reading fiction. :) You apparently love writing it as well. >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. Ummm...if Kasparov's accomplishments don't matter, then I guess it doesn't matter whether or not he was the world champion either then. Therefore Deep Blue might as well have beaten you or me at chess, and it's accomplishment is nothing special. "Simple as that." "Easy as pie!" "Until then, nyet!" LOL... Russell
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.