Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:40:18 08/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 1999 at 20:26:32, Ratko V Tomic wrote: > > But speaking scientifically, what is high > > value about something that is completely forged? > >For example, it is not so unusual that a graduate student >forges data. That doesn't invalidate scientific work of >his advisor, or the theory which the data confirmed. It sure doesn't substantiate it. I am actually surprised that you would say that it isn't so unusual for a graduate student to forge data. >There are performance i results pressures, real experiments >require eliminating lots of spurious effects which mask the >one person is looking for, and some people just can't resist >the shortcuts. Who actually faked Pioneer project results >(if that actually happened), I don't know, it could have >been any programmer on the project. It is well-documented, even see the ICCA Journal. >Or it could have been even Botvinnik. After all, Mendel >had faked results for his genetic inheritance experiments >to get better agreement with his theory (which turned out >to be a correct theory, it's just that in practice it was >harder to confirm than he had patience for). To get funding >scientists often exaggerate importance and sometimes even >fake the results, or hand-pick data which fit better, not >because they doubt their theory but because they cannot >produce sufficently flashy results in a given time and >given resources to attract the funding. It was Botwinnik. He did it for ~30 years. >In case of Botvinnik's chess programming ideas, I think >the main value is that he had condensed, through the years >of in depth introspection, the algorithms of his own chess >thinking. Given his caliber as a player, his general >intellect and the years he put in his efforts of >analysing and reporting his own mental algorithms, his >"core dump," as it were, is worth much more than what >someone tells psychologist in an interview, or what >a much weaker player can glimpse at in his own mind. > >I think that once somene manages to capture fully >those mental algorithms in a program (which his >programmers with their modest resources and/or capabilities >have failed to do), this program will be so much ahead >of the rest of chess programs and human players, it >will be comical to watch them try playing against it. If someone managed to fully capture their mental process and imbue a computer with it, computer chess would not be high on the list of interesting research. Dave
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.