Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 16:18:00 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 19:07:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 30, 1999 at 18:48:30, Mark Young wrote: > >>On April 30, 1999 at 18:27:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>A computer will be a GM when they pass exactly the same stringent tests as a >>>human GM. That means performance ratings at a contest and establishing all the >>>GM norms, etc. One victory over a player does not mathematically demonstrate >>>anything except the outcome of a single experiment. >>> >>>However, all that having been said, I suspect that computers are a lot stronger >>>than I formally thought they were. It is not inconceivable that some programs >>>on the right hardware are at GM strength. >>> >>>To extrapolate that caliber from a single match is not repsonsible. >> >>So when are you sending off your protest letter to FIDE for treating GM programs >>as second class chess players. You want the chess programs to pass exactly the >>same stringent tests, yet you know this will never happen. I don't see many >>invites for computer programs by fide to play in all the tournaments so they can >>pass exactly the same stringent tests. >Any mathematically equivalent basis would be equally acceptable. Note: "A GM >lost a match to a computer." is not a mathematically equivalent basis. >;-) Hi Dann, I do not see what math has to do with these problems of finding out if the current top programs are GM strength. What do you mean by "mathematically equivalent" in this context? José.
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.