Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:55:57 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 20:23:47, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >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 :-) I don't care about an opinion poll question one way or another. While we are at at, we can settle other important questions in a definite way: Was Capablanca better than Kasparov? Was Fischer better than Kasparov? Was there ever life on Mars? I'd love to see an opinion poll on those so we could put those questions to rest and move along to other important ones. :) > >But with the one or two questions we ever get on opinion Polls here, I think it >can be added. The problem is, the question has to read "do you think the best programs of today are playing at GM level in 40/2 games?" And that _think_ is the issue. No way to ask "Are programs playing at GM strength?" because we don't yet have enough data to answer that in a definite way, only in an "I think" way. And that does little to resolve this, correct?
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.