Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 06:03:14 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 01:25:01, Derek Paquette wrote: >We have Gm's crying left and right! >We have board members crying left and right > >"HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!" > >Its been decades since computers first started playing chess you would think >that eventually they would pass us, and now is that time for computers. If a >desktop PC chess program that is programmed by one man or two(sometimes) can >beat a super grandmaster (sometimes) you'd think a computer the size of a large >fridge, programmed and operated by a TEAM, and has a huge budget running so fast >that it calculates on a scale some can't even imagine that it would YES! beat a >human. > >We got GM's that are so far up on their horses they absolutely REFUSE to come >back to earth and realize that 'they' are beaten. Hydra outplayed adams fair >and square, it was obvious from game one. Yet...we still have people who are >die-hard grandmaster fanboys who say computers still don't 'understand chess' >well either they do or they don't, but whatever they are doing, if you call it >just brute forcing it, they are doing it better, well in compensation to >whatever micky adams or other Gm's its faced were doing. I cannot stand people >who cry foul over this, I especially can't stand some of the comments that are >on chessbase.com, like Nigel Short for example, what exactly is he saying? Is >he saying "yes hydra can beat any human, i feel bad for adams" or is he calling >bul@#@it > >Regardless, we got idiots asking "what does this prove?" > >If this was an arm wrestling competition, it would prove that hydra is a better >arm wrestler >If this was a 100m race, it would prove hydra is faster >If this was a god damn sweater knitting contest, hydra would be a better knitter > >So don't try and say it doesn't mean anything, hydra dominated adams, stepped up >to all other grandmasters, (topolov did ok, but it was a draw) no matter how >well Topolov did, who cares, it was a draw. The final standing is what counts > >"ah well he tried, lets give him more credit than the other guy who did JUST as >good and managed a draw" > >I cannot stand the fanboy wankism of some people who feel super grandmasters are >invincible because their lives exist within a very small bubble and can't escape >the fact that a machine thats worth a million bucks can beat them > >GOOD GRIEF Yes, but at the same time, there are indeed some problems with concluding that the machines are simply better. When users report engine-engine matches, it's common to read posts saying "you need more games to reach a statistically sound conclusion," or "anyone can win 6 games in a row over a 100 game match." So naturally, people want to extend that same kind of statistical rigor to man versus machine tournaments. And its true there are huge sampling issues. Too few games is one. The issue of whether Adams is representative of SuperGMs is another. The issue of whether Adams was good at playing computers is another, especially given his persistence with 1. e4. The issue of whether GMs could find weaknesses in Hydra's play were the machine available for enough games is another. The issue of whether other GMs like Smirin might have Hydra's number is another. The issues of Father Pablo's anti-computer style might be adapted for use against Hydra is another. Lots of questions. I think some people look like diehard human fans when, in reality, they just want to resist any premature conclusion that the machines are better. It's easy to confuse these individuals, who simply value statistical certainty very highly, with legitimate and unfortunately highly vocal GM fanatics. Overgeneralizations like "the machines are clearly better now" always produce heated discussion as individuals who value certainty clash point out the limitations of the generalization. But pointing out limitations doesn't necessarily make you a fanatic. It may just mean you have a scientific mind. Roger
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.