Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:53:15 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 09:43:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 08:57:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 06:22:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2003 at 23:34:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2003 at 05:21:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 18, 2003 at 04:38:32, Alastair Scott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 14:41:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>the elo system has no defined 0. results are only defined in terms of wins and >>>>>>>losses. For example, suppose one defined the average elo to be 1600, and placed >>>>>>>Kramnik, Kasparov, and Shirov in a room together and had them play 5000 games. >>>>>>>Kasparov's rating would be 1650 at best. Or we could define the 0 to be 0 - >>>>>>>Kasparov would have a rating of 1200, and some people would have negative >>>>>>>rating! The whole thing is just like potential energy in physics: only >>>>>>>differences in the rating system are meaningful. >>>>>> >>>>>>Excellent explanation, and there is also the Flynn effect (such rating systems >>>>>>tend to progressively inflate the numbers over time), which I believe has never >>>>>>been explained. >>>>> >>>>>How do you know they inflate if you can't compare them? >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>>> >>>> >>>>One simple idea is to compare the "average" rating for the pool, over >>>>time. IE the average "IQ" is not going up, so the average rating should >>>>not go up since it is a relative measure among the pool members. If it does >>>>go up, it has to be inflation since not _everybody_ is going to improve >>>>steadily... >>> >>>Actually it goes up due to learning by doing, hence the testers will always >>>adapt their tests to the actual level of information - based on the fact that >>>the average as such - like you've stated - does NOT change. The average of >>>intelligence. >>> >>>The same shoud be done with the Elo listing. The rise of the numbers on the top >>>implies a rising "strength" which is false! The strength is NOT rising but the >>>informational level about chess is still making progress. >>> >>>Strength is not identical with historic progress because historic levels rise >>>for the whole population, but not their 'strength'. >>> >>>It's clear that the strong players and more their claque try to confuse about >>>the historical relativity of their performance. But Kasparov is not stronger >>>than Fischer, actually he's already weaker than Kramnik, by 100 Elo points. This >>>is ridiculous to assume. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>I think that this subjext has nothing to do with intelligence. >> >>There are very intelligent people who are weak chess players because they have >>no experience in chess or because their memory is not good enough to imagine the >>position 10 plies later correctly. > >Exactly. But Uri, please, I always like to debate with you. Here you have >overseen that the "IQ", not invented by me here in the debate, was just an >example for a special test methodology. NOT because IQ now was equalized to >chess. That wasn't the point. I know this because I've read the whole thread >here. > > >> >>I think that humans have the potential to improve by better training methods. > >For sure. Without training no GM. Or let's better say no good or top GM. If >Anand would have been trained in the USSR, he would be World Champion for sure. > > >> >>Many years ago people could not use computers to train and today they can do it >>so it is logical to believe that players of today can be better not because they >>are more intelligent but because they have more options to train. > >It's only logical if you believe that inborn talents or genius could be made >even better with training. But this is false. How do you know it? I believe in it and I see no reason to change my mind because I have no evidence that Fisher could not play better with better training methods. Uri
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.