Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 09:27:19 12/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 11:41:54, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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... :) > I have seen the problem you describe elsewhere, but instead of a string, they use a metal hoop, which holds its shape. The problem I describe is much more interesting. >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.