Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 08:24:24 04/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2000 at 03:48:53, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 28, 2000 at 01:49:32, Jerry Adams wrote: > >> I do not buy the argument people try to sell that somehow chess between >>programs is different then chess between human and program. If you are speaking >>scientifically can you explain specifically what the differences are? I see >>Chess as being Chess. The same rules that govern computer vs computer chess , >>govern human vs computer. I do not disagree that humans and computers have >>different playing styles. Please produce the evidence that says that a SSdf >>program won't perform as well against humans as it does other programs? Are you >>sure that this ideal was not made up by the general consesus of this message >>board and put over as a fact?? > >If I create a medicine that works on dogs, and I claim that it will work on >humans, and someone else disagrees, I think the burden of proof is on me if I >want to say that it does work on humans. > >That the medicine might not work on humans is a plausible contention, because >humans and dogs are different enough biochemically. That's all it takes in >order to block me from making an additional claim about humans. > >That computers kill each other differently than humans kill computers is evident >if you watch the games. That is enough to allow it to be said that the SSDF >rankings may not apply to games with humans. > >Frohlick made some comment about Crafty vs humans, and you used the SSDF list as >supporting data against his argument. As a consequence, you are the one who >implied that the SSDF list has some pertinence to human games. It is up to you >to support this contention, in the face of a reasonable objection. You can't >just contend something based upon *inadequate* evidence, while simultaneously >demanding that your opponents produce *adequate* evidence before what you say >can be considered false. > >Kid A says something outrageous to kid B. Kid B says, "I don't believe that." >Kid A says, "Well, prove me wrong then." This is an intellectual bullying >tactic, and it is unfair because it puts too much burden on kid B. Kid A hopes >that kid B will not be able to divert the burden back to kid A, where it >belongs, and therefore kid A's contention will stand, bugging the hell out of >kid B, and causing kid A to smile smugly. > >bruce Right. Good logical point. Some people seems to have forgot his clases of ABC logic in the school. But well, everybody fall in that fallacies some times. It is just human. In any case, this is, perhaps, no so a black or white issue: as far as programs are better and better, they tend to approach a kind of playing style that makes sssdf list nearer to human elo. Of course, they are still not coincidental 100%. Maybe 50%? Hope "coincidental" is a correct english word. Fernando
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.