Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 05:45:29 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 08:17:39, Omid David wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 19:05:54, Daniel Clausen wrote: > [snip] >>Cheating, huh? Care to prove it if you claim such a thing? So and so many >>people claiming they did cheat doesn't count as a proof though. (it more >>likely is people being frustrated that 'a machine beat human kind' or >>something like that. >>Sargon >When humans are accused of cheating, they take doping tests. When computers >are accused of cheating, they submit full logs, something Deep Blue did >partially and incompletely. Look, you're just guessing. You don't have a PROOF for anything you claim here. There may be another reason why didn't didn't submit the full logs. Cheating is just one among them. When it comes to 'Is DeepBlue better then XYZ', most 'argument chains' are like this: -take some facts (ie DB got dismantled, they were not interested to play after their win, etc) -assume the reason why these things happened (ie 'because they feared they would lose next match', 'because they cheated', etc) -use these assumptions (either in parallel or in serial as an argument chain) and come to the conclusion that DB is weaker than todays programs Science just doesn't work that way. Some assumptions are probably not that far-fetched, but.. they're still assumtions.. that is, there's no known proof for them. Why can't we just agree that we don't really know for sure, which one (DB or Fritz/DJ/etc) is stronger? We still can guess for ourselves and phantasize of course.. :) Sargon
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.