Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:41:54 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 11:17:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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_? Both strings are concentric, so no pulling up. The distance from string A to string B is constant at every point, with A being exactly the equator of Earth, 40 million meters. So you have two concentric circles, one of 40 million meters in length and the other of 40 million and 1 meter. The question was what is the distance between A and B. Gianluigi gave the right answer, but he had to calculate it. "Intuitively", people say that this distance is near zero. And Wittgentein went fishing... :) Enrique >>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.