Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 17:23:47 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 11:11:18, Harald Faber wrote: >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? whats wrong with an opinion Poll question, it is only for opinions. But bob I think I know why you do not want one. Cause I would suspect that most people would say yes, and from recent posts you will be yet again be bombarded as to your many reasons why they are not :-) But with the one or two questions we ever get on opinion Polls here, I think it can be added.
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.