Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 22:48:00 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On J > >Your logic is broken and you are using a circular argument here. You *can not* >play games against a GM "anonymously". It isn't done. Not in FIDE, not in the >USCF nor in any other chess federation. No offense Mr. Hyatt but you don't even know what a circular arguement is. It is an arguement with a structure similar to the following. "God exists. We know that to be true,since the bible plainly tells us that god exists. And we know that what the bible tells us is true, since the bible is the word of God." -- A circular arguement > >So that argument is no good. Please The GM is going to know he is playing fritz or >whatever computer, and he will employ anti-computer strategies, and he will >win most if not all of the games. And no amount of hand-waving can solve that. > No one claimed that such an experiment wasever going totake place. The point was that if one was to carry out a (VSE)Valid Scientific Experiment to find out, how a chess program would perform against normal grandmaster play then the GM could not know that he was playing a computer, because the inherent bias would invalidate the results of the experiment. Find any text on conducting valid experimental science in the world and you will find no difference. >Yes, *if* he didn't know, the game might be different. The game would be different and that is the whole point. Finding out how a computer would perform against regular grandmaster play(most specifically as it would occur in a swiss system event) And if a frog had >pockets, he'd carry a gun and never worry about snakes again, either. But it >isn't going to happen as you suggest, ever. Strawman sir, please no emotion use evidence this kind of thing does nothing to support an arguement. What kind of scientist are you? We don't say never. > >As to why I'd play "anti-computer" it's simple for a chess-player. If I know >you don't like tactical games, expect to face a gambit when we play. If I >know you don't like strategic games, expect a blocked/closed position when we >play. I play the best way I can to beat my opponent. I *know* computers can't >handle closed positions, so why not play what they do the worst in? Makes sense >to me. Makes sense to IM/GM players too, apparently... If you are trying to say that GM's can sometimes beat computers there is certainly no arguement against that. What is of concern, is can programs such as fritz play at a GM level. Lets qaulify what is meant by GM. Arthur Bisguier is a GM, Arthur Dake is a GM, both are elderly, and rated a little more than 2300 USCF. Even if they knew that they were playing fritz they would probably have serious trouble, and if they didn't know, they would definitely be toast. So what is important to analyze is the ELO rating. If Fritz can achieve a elo rating 2450-2500 that's really all that's needed to show that Fritz is the strength of what we call a GM. Does fritz have some qaulities such as flexibility, the answer is no. But does it have the strength? The theoretical point of the earlier statement was not that Fritz would play anonymously in swiss tournaments, but that if it did, that it would probably be ably to acquire the GM norm, because without the the anti-computer chess strategys being pressed upon it Fritz would win a considerable amount. If a grandmaster plays Fritz a regular training game, for the purpose of beating humans, thus he/she t played fritz as if it were a human. I doubt that anyone would say that Fritz would not put up what you would call Grandmaster resistance.
This page took 0.01 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.