Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:47:21 10/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 21:03:22, Derrick Daniels wrote: >On October 24, 2001 at 13:30:37, José Carlos wrote: > >>On October 24, 2001 at 01:21:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On October 24, 2001 at 01:18:29, Kevin Stafford wrote: >>> >>>>If you are commenting on how the ssdf's ratings compare to FIDE ratings, there >>>>is no real sense of 'accurate'. The pools are entirely separate, and therefore >>>>attempts at comparison between the two are meaningless. It is for this reason >>>>that it is impossible for one list to be 'underrated', because the two lists >>>>have nothing to do with one another. >>> >>>I think that this statement is a bit too strong. Surely, there is some >>>correlation between the strength ratings on the two lists. We just have no idea >>>what it is! >> >> I disagree. I believe there's no correlation at all. Human chess and computer >>chess are different games IMO. The only way to compare human and computer >>players is let them play. > > > > Different Games How?? This is a figment of your imagination as the two are >exactly the same! >Different Styles yes, but that doesn't say much, since Humans >vary in style also, but they both play the Exact same game called Chess, they >use the same rules. I don't know the meaning of the word 'figment', but I won't comment on that anyway. About the game, yes, it is the same game in a sense, but the argument about the rules is false. Computer programs don't move the pieces with their hands, they don't push the clock button, they don't call the referee to ask for a dead draw position, they don't shake the opponent's hand at the begining and end of a game, they don't write down the secret move... They don't do many things the rules say must be done. But yes, the game is the same in a sense. But to understand my statement you have to think beyond the rules (the surface); you have to think about what humans and computers do when they play chess. Human chess is a logical game. Humans do use reasoning. Most of the time, they analyze only to verify an idea is correct. Computers analyze first and, at the end of the lines, they find _the ideas_, without even knowing it. This is what I meant with _different games_. Humans will never play computer chess (they can't); computers will (probably) never play human chess (they can't). >The only real difference is that Computers don't make Major >Tactical errors as Humans, Wrong. Zugwang mistakes due to null move appear as Major Tactical errors to human eyes. Additionaly, it's up to the programmer to make decisions that can lead to ocassional tactical mistakes in order to reduce the size of the tree. >so the game apears to be different because the >brilliancy's humans get against each other, cannot be done to the Computer do to >tactical Prowness. Wrong again due to the same reasons explained before. >As an example of what I mean, imagine this: I spend some months studying old >>programs books (I say old programs because they didn't learn), and I find >>thousands of lines to win against those books. Then I bould a book with such >>lines and let my (weak) program play in the SSDF (or any other >>automated-games-based rating list). The games won against the old programs would >>be enough to give my program a much higher rating than what it deserves. Against >>humans, I would continue to lose the same way as before. >> It's an extreme case, I know, but it shows one of the differences between >>computer chess and human chess. > > >Your discribing the differences between humans and Computers, but the game of >Chess Remains the Same. Computers can't learn in any real sense, but this is not >what I am talking about, Human Chess and Computer chess is the same because >chess is chess. You can either play the game strong or weak. Answered above. >I am not interested >in the Artificial Intelligence part of it, >I'm interested only in the results, >regardless of how those results were achieved. That's your mistake. Imagine a computer that passes Turing test. You can talk to it as if it was a person, but it isn't. The Artificial Intelligence part, as you say, is very important. Otherwise, you could end up falling in love with a computer, for example. José C.
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.