Author: John Warfield
Date: 19:39:04 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 05:30:55, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 06, 2000 at 03:25:28, James Robertson wrote: > >>>This seems like a very funny thing for you to say. The allusion you have made >>>in the field of logic(especially Toulman logic) is called an "appeal to >>>authority". And this type of argumentation can be effective, however when >>>people make an appeal to an Authority on ACTUAL chess play like larry Kaufman an >>>International master who claims that programs are around as strong as the top 5 >>>U.S grandmasters(on mere p400s at that) you dismiss it out of hand. >> >>You know? While I respect Bob's and Ed's opinion, I really don't care what it is >>as long as the only evidence I see - Rebel's performance rating - continues to >>stay below the GM level. This is not some mere mortal's OPINION, it is actual >>fact. >> >>James > >It's also an actual fact that the recent versions of Rebel do not have an SSDF >rating. Rebel might be like Genius - reached a certain level and not improved >from there (even if people think that it plays more stylishly now). > >As for EVIDENCE - I would have thought that an objective observer would have >said that the balance of evidence comes down strongly in favour of those who >believe that the computers are into the grandmaster range. > >So - why do I think that programmers refuse to say this? > >The following are not intended to be seen as accurate analyses, but rather as a >demonstration that "reasonable doubt" exists about the programmers' >impartiality. > >* In the case of Crafty, maybe it really isn't at GM level - or maybe Bob is >demoralised by the number of times it's been beaten on the ICC, forgetting that >that the ICC conditions, while useful for research, are not truly representative >of tournament chess conditions > >* In the case of Ed Schroeder, I think he suffers from low self esteem. He seems >to have developed a fear of competition. Also, maybe the long years of >proclaiming great results, only to be knocked back down by a humiliating defeat >at the hands of a GM have created within him an automatic reaction of excessive >modesty when asked about his programs relative to strong human players > >* In general, every programmer who has spoken to "positional" IMs and above will >have heard expressions like, "What a terrible move that was positionally". >Certainly many GMs said that many times about DB during its successful match >with GK in '97. But DB still "brought home the bacon". > >* Chess programmers are often timid people, who prefer to have other people heap >credit on them, rather than shouting out their achievements for themselves > >* For so long, computers have been worse than GMs, and GMs emphasise the >computers' weaknesses so strongly, that it is easy to see how, in the absence of >truly compelling, utterly indisputable evidence, most people could easily miss >the moment when the computers really do reach the GM level. Think about this: it >is conspicuously clear that the vast majority of Wall St traders miss the >moments when the market's primary trend turns up or down sharply - it's almost a >truism by definition! > >But if Bob Hyatt wants to laugh, I say "go ahead" - laughter is known to be good >for your health! > >-g A very good psycho-analyzis Dr. Frued, your evalautions certainly can be based in fact. I think that Ed Deliberately downplays the rating of his program, because of the Academic pressure to conform with some of his colleages, Also he feels that it is better to be safe than sorry, Sorry if he projects his true evaluations of rebel, then looks like a Fool if the program doesn't reach the projected rating.
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.