Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 08:17:57 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 10:38:02, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On December 12, 1999 at 10:29:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On December 12, 1999 at 09:48:31, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 1999 at 08:49:08, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>Hi all, >>>> >>>>As the issue of SSDF ratings, and their comparative value with USCF or FIDE >>>>ratings, has been a recurring theme and a number of threads have sprouted >>>>recently, I thought I'd share my opinion (self-plagiarized) as I think it is >>>>relevant and might shed some light on the matter. >>>> >>>>SSDF ratings: inflated or not? >>>>Here's what I think: the ratings are not inflated in the least bit. >>>>Sounds crazy doesn't it? But it's not. People get too caught up trying to make >>>>these futile comparisons between SSDF ratings and human ratings whether USCF, >>>>FIDE, or whatever. The point is, and it has been repeated very often, there >>>>simply is no comparison. The only comparison possible is that both are generated >>>>using Elo's rating system, but that's where it ends. Elo's system is supposed to >>>>calculate, according to a point system, the probability of success between >>>>opponents rated in that system. The SSDF rating list does that to perfection, >>>>but it is based on the members of the SSDF only. If you put Fritz 5.32 on fast >>>>hardware up against the Tasc R30 or whatnot, it will pulverize the machine. The >>>>difference in SSDF ratings accurately depicts that. It has NOTHING to do with >>>>FIDE or USCF ratings. The rating of Fritz, Hiarcs, or others on the SSDF rating >>>>list depicts their probability of success against other programs on the SSDF >>>>list, and that's it. It doesn't represent their probability of success against >>>>humans because humans simply aren't a part of the testing. If you want to find >>>>out how a program will do against humans then test it against humans, and then >>>>you will find it's rating against them. The SSDF rating has nothing whatsoever >>>>to do with that. As was pointed out, I believe the SSDF ratings pool is a pool >>>>that is COMPLETELY isolated from all others and as such cannot possibly be >>>>compared with them. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>I think that we don't know much of what we are talking about in this issue >>>comp-comp vs. human comp, SSDF vs. Fide. >>> >>>There is an anecdote of Wittgenstein that comes to mind. One day in his class at >>>Cambridge he put a problem to his students. Imagine that the Earth is perfectly >>>spherical and there is a string that goes all around the equator; this string >>>would be 40 million meters long. Now imagine a second concentric string only 1 >>>meter longer than the first, of 40000001 meters. Without math calculations, only >>>from the top of your heads, intuitively, what would be the distance between both >>>strings at each point? His students answered that it would be 1 / 40 million, or >>>a near zero figure like this. Then Wittgenstein told them that the distance is >>>almost 1/6 of a meter and that their wrong answers showed the value of words and >>>intuitions. Shortly after he quit Cambridge for good and went fishing. >> >>Only 1/6 of a meter? If that is what he really said, that is an extremely funny >>story! > >It is almost 1/6 of a meter. It's easy to calculate. So you prove too the value >of intuitions? :) I re-read your story more carefully and discovered I had confused it with a much more interesting problem: Ok, you've made the string 1 meter longer. Now, how _high_ can the string be pulled _up_? > >Enrique > >>>Mind you, I also think that without intuitions, whatever that is, exact, >>>verifiable thinking tends to sterility, so from my let's call it feminine >>>intuition (astrologically I am the intuitive cancer, double cancer in fact, soon >>>triple I guess :(, what crap this astrology), and going back to this comp-comp >>>vs. human-comp discussion, I sometimes wonder. To make it short, when looking at >>>the Rebel-Baburin and Rebel Sherbakov games, I "know" that the fast finders >>>couldn't play as well as Rebel. Following the games with Fritz 6 was >>>overwhelming evidence in this direction. On the other hand, why this alleged >>>positional, human-like (?) superiority wouldn't also show up in comp-comp games, >>>so "knowledgeable" computers would compensate with it for their slower tactical >>>speed? Because it doesn't compensate and comp-comp is decided by tactics. Is >>>this "superior" understanding only the adaptation of a program to human playing, >>>with the only value of making human life more miserable in chess, and we believe >>>this anthropocentric approach greater? Is there really a difference between >>>comp-comp and human-comp? So what's up? I really wish we would be less of a >>>flower collector and more of a botanist. >>> >>>Enrique
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.