Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 06:01:47 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>That is not the arguement. The arguement is simply that to test accurately how >>a computer program(Fritz) would perform against standard play in a >>tournament(swiss), for SCIENTIFICLY acceptable data you would need to remove the >>bias, and that bias requires that the opponent not know he/she is playing a >>computer. The Hypothesis, is that indeed a program such as fritz would perform >>extremely well. > > >you keep making that statement, but it is *dead wrong*. In a scientific >experiment, you don't weed out circumstances you don't like. Because then >it becomes a contrived experiment. IE you can travel at C in a perfect >vacuum? Very good. But where do you find that perfect vacuum? Not in >outer space? No vacuum there (plenty of atoms to run into, even if you go >to inter-universpace where you might only find one atom in a cubic meter. > Here what you are doin is contriving experiment to test something that you don want further it's not even relational to the subject because it has no question of bias which is important in this discussion. The procedure outlined does not create nonexistent circumstances as you would want to claim. What it does is normalize the situation, so that the program is playing against standard chess play as it normally occurs. When you do not remove the bias, then you can not test how a program would perform against typical human chess play. This for the reason that Humans perform differently when they know the opponent is not human. I can't believe that i have to explain the absolute most fundamental tenant of experimental science to you. Again i am not attempting to argue with you, but that's exactly what you are trying to make this, instead of a discussion. I would propose that you leave this thread alone if it incenses you so much. > >Now, is that a GM, or what? I say it is *not* a GM. This is the typical lazy >out of a problem. Your opponent keeps beating you for playing the same opening >over and over? Just don't count the duplicate games. Don't do any work to stop >playing the same losing line over and over, just don't count them. Your >opponent smashes you by playing closed positions? Don't solve the problem by >making the program play the positions better, solve the problem by either not >letting the human play closed positions, or try to hide behind a curtain so your In the correct scientific procedure that has been outlined, the opponent does not know much about you, just as occurs in the swiss system. Further as i said sense you would not use the same person to play for fritz, the idea that Player X will play B against you is pointless, because Player X wont know you. > >I agree, but you are *not* describing "standard chess play" by any definition. >You are describing a "contrived circumstance"... No that's what you are creating a "contived circumstance", when you place a computer into a chess playing arena unmasked. This is because the computer does not face the same type of chess play that a human would face when they entered the tournament. Thus the you have bias, which in order to find out how the program would play against standard chess play, you would have to remove the bias, and this would be done by not allowing the person to know they were playing a computer. Everything remains identical to the way that it occurs normally. N
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.