Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 23:09:00 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>No Hyatt your logic is flawed. First of all i didn't say anything about as you >>>>put it "MANY GM's", The truth is however that there are some and i would gather >>>>a good number. Another thing when people use that statistic about how many >>>>times you should statistically beat someone, it really isn't considering that if >>>> I am playing a certain number of games against a single person, or wether i'm >>>>playing against several people of that rating and what the effect is. I myself >>>>have just recently played a match with an INDIVIDUAL 200 points below me , i >>>>beat him perfectly, , besides that, i have beat him 14 times straight! I would >>>>bet that's a bit beyond statistical error. >>> >>>your point would be? if you beat him less then 3 of every 4, I'd be concerned >>>that his rating was too low or yours was too high. As it is, either yours is >>>too low, or his is too high, because if he is winning none, he is way over 400 >>>Elo points worse than you... >> >>No he is not 400 points below me in fact he has been improving very fast. i >>beat him because i'm better. plus > >read what I wrote again. *IF* you win every game, you are *at least* 400 >rating points better than him. *period*. That is what Elo is all about. > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Further i never said that computers weren't getting busted badly, because they >>>>are, but you simply overlook anti computer strategy. As i said if i played in a >>>>Swiss system tourney recieving moves from fritz, without people adopting their >>>>anti Computer strategy, they would play normally, allow the positions to get >>>>open,play for tactics, and then bye-bye i'd have the norm. Further i wasn't >>>>talking about computers in general, i was talking about Fritz. I already know >>>>or i shall say that i've heard, that you don't like the way fritz plays. >>>>However to pull your own tactic, according to the STATISTICS of both selctive >>>>search, and SSDF fritz is the strongest program. Further people who understand >>>>chess much better than you, me and most people GM Yermolinsky, and i also >>>>believe Anand believe Fritz to be the strongest commercially available program. >>>> >>> >>> >>>it probably is the strongest available. But it is also the worst at defending >>>against "anti-computer" strategy. And whether it would do better "incognito" >>>isn't an issue, because it can't play like that. >> >> >> The point was never to make it an issue, but to show that you can't truly know >>what type of result a Chess program would know without computer bias by the >>opponent. >> > >but who cares? I wont dignify I wont dignify that. I wont be a party to you telling every one concerened with computer strength the ssdf, selective search and all of the patrons in this newsgroup that finding out computer strength isn't worth their time and effort. Because such an event is completely impossible anyway. YOu can >*not* play GM players in a FIDE/USCF/etc event "anonymously" where they won't >know you are using a computer. That is totally impossible. Hyatt no one was stating that it would happen, the point is made that Theoretically if it did then Fritz would get the norm. You apprently agree with the statement, you are just attempting not have to go back on your word and say that Fritz could ever perform at a GM level. This motive of yours is extraordinarily lucid and apparent. In science it's not about pride, it's about scientific investigation to find the truth, something you seem to have never learned. I'd bet that a >computer could tear hell out of a GM if they played in the middle of a rock >concert too, because who could concentrate? The computer sure could. But it >won't ever happen... Again as a scientist you should know better than to say what wont happen. Further please how many strawmen do you have? I'm starting to think you have a haystack somewhere. The whole point was to test a computer under fair conditions, no one mentioned anything about as you put it a "rock concert" > > >>And if it can't, >>??? Thus by this admission are you admitting that without anti computer chess >>techniques it would win? > > >nope. Kasparov didn't play anti-computer in the first match and still rolled >Deep Blue pretty well. But given the choice, most players would play the style >that gives them the best chance. And against a computer that is a closed >position. > > > >> >> it is going >>What >> >>> >>> >>>>Of course neither you and i can prove wether fritz is a GM strength or not, >>>>without actually testing fritz in actual tournament play(I believe that this >>>>would also have to be done just as i said in a secret way with an individual >>>>recieving moves from fritz, to avoid bias, so that players would play the way >>>>they do normally). It is none the less, my belief that indeed Fritz(current >>>>version) could perform well enough, to eventually recieve 3 GM norms in 5 >>>>Years(the time in which one must obtain all 3 norms)playing on the europeon >>>>swiss circuit of chess. >>> >>> >>> >>>That's an invalid way of testing. >> Everything has to be out in the open, >> >>Quite incorrect!! It always depends on what you are testing, and what you are >>trying to find out. In this case since it is known that knowledge by the >>opponent that he/she is playing a computer effects how they normally play, you >>would never know how good at playing against standard chess a program is. What >>you WOULD BE TESTING, is how the program plays against anti-conventional methods >>of play(anti-computer strategy). > > >we are talking about a computer "GM" are we not? In that case, there is but >*one* way to test... in tournaments. That's the *only* way to get a GM title. >And it makes your argument "moot". This statement has nothing to do with the above paragraph, i will quote you "can not parse". > > > >> >>>human GM has to know he's playing a computer (although if you make the match >>>last 24 games, Fritz would get destroyed no matter what because the GM would >>>"figure out it's a computer" after just a very few games, and then it would be >>>over... >> >>Hyatt you may be a computer scientist, but apparently your education in >>experimental scientific technique is limited. If you are trying to test a >>programs to find its strength in real tournament chess, against normal chess >>play. Then it is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE to eliminate the bias. When a player >>knows he is playing a computer, the tester of such an event can not know that >>this information is not skewing the behavior of the player, and thus the >>results. So you can not know how strong the program is against standard chess >>play. What you would be fnding is that against anti-typical chess play, the >>program does not perform effectively. Further, If a person was playing an >>opponent with no expectation that they were a computer, NO, they would not think >>it was a computer. If i was feeding Shirov moves from Fritz, for his match >>against Kasparov. Kasparov would never think shirov was cheating! He would >>just think that shirov was playing considerably worse chess than usual(for the >>reason that kasp and shirov are of course much better than fritz or the average >>GM). Just for arguement sakes, say the grandmaster did find his opponent was >>using a computer, again you would be observing how a program plays against >>anti-computer chess, something that does not occur in standard chess play. > > > >My scientific method is a lot sounder than yours. Because you are trying to >create a whole new class of GM player, the "anonymous GM". It won't happen. I'm not trying to create a whole new class of anything the example that i gave is how a valid scientific experiment on this subject would be conducted. As i said your knowledge of experimental scientific investigation is limited. Anyone versed well in scientifc investigative technique can verify this. I need no defense and since the method is common practice throughout the world, it needs no defense either.
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.