Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 07:20:27 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 09:48:28, Dann Corbit wrote: [snip] >>The fact remains that computers have beaten GM's Thus they must be GM level to >>do it. Its like saying if one GM beats another that maybe that GM is not of the >>level, cause he only wins when a better GM blunders, get real !!! >This is not a demonstration of computers being at GM level. I have beaten >players who are *much* better than I am. It is not a demonstration that I am as >good as they are. It is merely a demonstration of an isolated win. I should mention also that beating them was not any sort of indication that I was inferior to them (even though I am). >>You are right we do not need an opinion poll question, they are GM level, >>otherwise they would not be able to beat a GM. Just because a GM blunders does >>not make him a GM anymore. Hoe many more win do computers have to do to make >>then GM level >Scientific proof is what is needed. Not an opinion poll. A win against a good >opponent does not prove equality. Computers *might* be at GM level. Or not. For a GM to be at GM level, what does he/she have to do? A computer must pass those exact same conditions or it is not *proven* to be at GM level. Period. Right now, we just don't know. Scientifically, that is. Let's invent a new measure called "Seems Like a GM to me" Any computer is at that level if you think it is.
This page took 0.01 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.