Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:02:40 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 05:28:57, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 20:29:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>Because if _everybody_ improves, ratings can _not_ change, since ratings are >>>>based >>>>solely on the probability of X beating Y. :) >>> >>>So what you are saying is, that although the strength on average has gone up, >>>the Elo rating shouldn't, by construction? >> >>correct, unless the ones at the top get better, while the ones at the bottom >>stay the same, which doesn't seem reasonable. > >It sounds perfectly reasonable to me actually. I think it is quite normal if the >level hightens over time, better training methods, more money, better opening >theory. >No record stands forever in any kind of sport, when you think humans can't >possibly get stronger, faster or better someone will show up to prove you wrong. >In chess this is just not so easy to measure as it is in some athletic >diciplines. > >You have to analyze games and be a really brilliant player youself to see if >level is higher today than 20 years ago. I don't have that skill, but I'll take >the word of those that do. :) > >-S. Sune, the moment you could understand that you are unable to understand what Bob is talking about, you are NOT more intelligent but you have learned how to give less unqualified statements. In IQ-Tests, based on Bob's assumption that the overall talents do NOT [!] change, the organizers take care that the average is always guaranteed by an adaption to the always new level of information about the questions that are used in such tests. Look, you, and I suppose 80% here in the group, do NOT understand the difference between the extension of a variable in a population and the overall rising of the general level of quality of a field itself over the historic time axis. All the rest, and necessary conclusions not mentioned in this little message, is left to you. If I would write a reader about the whole and complex topic you would probably understand ONLY what you were qualified for. If you lack of certain basic lectures it is impossible to really understand what I am talking about. The best that could happen is that you learn to repeat with cleverness what you've read. But that would be no proof that you have understood. We are in touch here with a typical confusion about the difference between clever talking ad being intelligent. BTW this is also the reason for the fact that not everybody who has eidetics is already able to become a GM. Eidetics is the base but then you need a lot more to become GM. What is the importance of such a Law for computerchess? <g> You know the answer? Easy. With memory alone a machine still is no GM if it doesn't understand the tricky side of chess. Ok, the concretenedd is assured so to speak, BUT only to a pre-defined depth while human players have no limitation. I think that is easy enough. NB that if you might take this a too personal, then I'd like to confirm you that I took your posting for a general remark but I spoke to you for the benefit of a better private atmosphere. It's an invitation, but if you felt offended then it is still addressed to the group as such. Rolf Tueschen
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.