Author: Jan-Frode Myklebust
Date: 15:06:05 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 1998 at 17:29:03, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>Don't know, never tried this. But if you want to measure only the >>physical act, I see no reason why not. But I guess "the best kisser" is >>harder to find, than the best chessplayer, since finding the best kisser >>is a lot more subjectiv than declaring a winner in chessgames. > >I don't think so. The elo rating does NOT measure the best chess player. Guess we are talking about two different things then. I see the rating as a measure of strength, nothing more. And this is what the SSDF is trying to measure. You obviously want to measure the best player (program?) from something else. Some chess soule... Something higher.. The best player obviously needs human intelligens.. Nothing less. >Thats my thesis. Also there is NO best move in a position (if it isn't >mate or forced tactical stuff). I believe there must be, since chess is an absolute game. There are a finite number of possible moves, therefore there must be a best move (or a set of best moves) in any given position. > >We always try to do so as if there is an exact move. >Also we try to speak about ELO as if it really represents strength >EXACTLY. >But the problem is : this is not the fact. >Than we try to transform the same bullshit into >computerchess which is even less EXACT. >These programs only simulate chess. > >If you want to measure quality with machines that can only measure >quantity, you will not measure the right thing in the end. >If there would have been a chess-strength measurable in ELO, if there >would really be ONE or sometimes more than ONE BEst move, anything would >be easy. > >You always try to measure something you cannot measure if you use a >machine. > >>>No IM is speeded up 3 times and is GM ! >> >>OK, change the IM to club player then. The point is the same. > >No - club-players are also not cloned and run with different speeds and >hash. > >>>The key is that >>>a) there is NO absolute playing strength (even between humans there is a >>>parameter called PLAYING STYLE that overwrites offen the parameter >>>playing-strength and makes it impossible to measure who is stronger) >> >>The SSDF isn't trying to measure playing style, and noone said they >>were. > >And this is the reason they cannot measure strength. >Because strength is not a number. It is more than this. >A superposition. >Light is not wave or particle. It is more. >Chess strength is more than results or style. It is both ! >And a BEST move is more than the best evaluated move or the move that >leads to the most often played line that leads into wins. It is NOT a >quantity. >It is a superposition. You are getting too deep for me. It's starting to sound like you see chess as something beyond life. Some higher for of inteligens.. :) jfm
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.