Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 16:39:46 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 11:06:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 14, 1998 at 01:48:00, Shaun Graham wrote: > >>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. > >this is also circular: > >if we could play games against a GM without the GM knowing that he is playing >a computer then fritz could be a GM. But it is impossible to play a GM without >his knowing his opponent. But if we could play games against a GM without the >GM knowing that he is playing a computer then fritz could be a GM. But it is >impossible... Firstly this is a construction that you have writen and compares with nothing that i spoke of. > >looks like a circle, smells like a circle, feels like a circle... by golly it >is a circle. Your pre-condition is impossible, so your conclusion is >improbable. > I really wish you would stop attempting to alter what has been said with what you would have liked to have been said, for the purposes of allowing you the possibility to actually have a decent arguement. > >> >>"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. >> > >typically valid scientific experiments are founded in "fact". IE who would >want to try to simulate a weather system in a universe where water freezes at >-10 degrees C, or where it boils at +70 degrees C? Because those conditions >don't exist naturally. Ditto with your GM scenario. Chess has *never* been >anonymous. It is doubtful it ever will. I maintain that after playing fritz >2 games, a GM will *know* what he is playing. If you play a 12 game match, you >might win the first (unlikely), but you will very likely lose the last 10, with >maybe an occasional draw thrown in. > >So what's the point in arguing about something that won't ever happen? > > > >>>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) > > >the game would be different if white always had to play without his h-pawn too. >What exactly does a "variant" of chess prove in this context? > > >> >> 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. >> > >I'm the kind of scientist that bases experiments on real conditions, which >are the conditions most of us are most interested in. IE you want to play >a computer vs a GM in a rock concert, or in a totally black room, or where >the GM doesn't know who/what he is playing, or whatever, feel free to do so. >But *that* would not be evidence of a GM program. Because the title "GM" >is awarded in a specific way, and that does *not* include the conditions you >have set forth. That's exactly right, you want to test a program in a real condition, in other words you want the Human player to respond the way he normally does when playing chess, without bias. To set an environment where this can happen has absolutely nothing to do with as you put it "rock concerts". Obvioulsy you have no understanding of what is important, the title of GM has no signifigance. What's important is determining is it capable of performing with the strength of a GM and that's what would be tested. You can dump the title in the trash. > > > >> >>
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.