Author: stuart taylor
Date: 05:36:33 02/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2003 at 08:14:36, Sune Larsson wrote: >On February 09, 2003 at 06:50:10, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On February 08, 2003 at 21:39:20, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On February 08, 2003 at 20:50:54, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>E.g. Smirin and another who has best chance against machine should play, perhaps >>>>3 vs DF and 3 vs DJ each, then, if no one gets much improvement on Kasparov and >>>>Kramniks results, then we will know that the competition is over, and that man >>>>does not dominate machine in chess. >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>> How many games needed for the result to be statistically valid ? >>> >>> /s > >>It's not that system. We just want to know if there is still plenty of life left >>in human chess, which computers cannot yet overcome, and that this life still >>CAN result in the humiliation of computers in a show exhibition. > >>S.Taylor > > > Aha, I was just about to write some words like "of course there is...", when > I got to the final two words in your answer - *show exhibition*... Everything > is then revolving around marketing, media interests and steering up people > in order to make them buy some products. For those chess players involved, > it's very easy money of course. And the results will be an effect of the most > vital thing here: To make the wheels keep on spinning - the show must go on... > Offer $ 10.000, for a 6-game match, to IM/GM:s > 2450 ELO and your mailboxes > will be overflooded and tele-lines blocked... ;-) > > /s I'm interested in what "of course there is" evidence that computers are still greatly lacking in what it takes to equal the best of humans. If these "show games" mean nothing, then there should be more than those. If an average world championship match is enough, then this should be atleast the same. S.Taylor
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.