Author: Harald Faber
Date: 08:11:18 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 11:08:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>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. > > >Right now we are at computers 3, humans 5, in our 8 game 40/2hr series of >games. That _might_ mean the computers are at the lower GM level. It also >might mean that they are at super-GM level. Or it might mean they were somewhat >lucky. Untill we have enough games, we don't know. If we had a score of 15-5, >I think the conclusion would be pretty accurate (assuming 15 for humans) that >the computers are 200 points worse (ie 2400). If we had 10-10, I'd think that >we would conclude that the computers were reasonably close to 2600, although >there is still a significant margin of error for only 20 games. > >Or we could have a vote. That will decide it, right? :) A reason why you don't count Hiarcs-Hergott?
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.