Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 21:49:59 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 19:57:47, Chessfun wrote: >On November 29, 2000 at 14:16:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 28, 2000 at 20:47:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>I take some issue with the mention of negative stuff when there is non-negative >>>stuff that can be discussed without detracting from the conversation. >>> >>>For example, someone posts a game, and we can talk about the game or we can >>>spend three days talking about whether the opponent used a computer. >> >> >>You have to learn to read "in context". In what I wrote, the emphasis was >>on "just because a strong program lost to a weak human, don't assume that >>the weak human is really a human." If someone posts 100 games here where a >>1700 player beat strong computers on ICC, I would lazily say "they are all >>cheaters." And I would probably be right in 99% of the cases. Because that >>just doesn't happen very often. But in the thread you mention, cheating >>wasn't the issue. "Don't take this result too seriously because ... " _was_ >>the issue to me... > > >By making the above statement _Lazily_ you would be branding an innocent as a >cheater. IMO the 99 should go free rather than risk that. > >Sarah. There are a couple of things that I would like to touch upon. I think that the 99% figure is too high. 1700 players don't get to play the computers very often, but I think that if they did, you'd see a few wins now and then, and it would be possible to collect them into a set where a weak player beats a computer. There would be some who would cheat, but the question in my mind is whether half of them would cheat, not whether 99% would. Another thing that annoys me about this is that if Bob was right, he could use the situation provided rather than discussing situations that are more in his favor. This player wasn't a 1700 player. He was more like 1850 (that's just his ICC rating, of course). You might say the difference isn't significant, but if that is the case, why fudge the numbers at all? My ICC rating was under 1700 a month ago. It's now 1872. I increased it by beating weak computers. My actual strength is approximately 2000 USCF, as of the last time I played tournament chess. I believe I am stronger now. Finally, if you showed me 100 games where a (real) 1700 player beat a computer, I could tell you with near 100% accuracy whether the player won in 1700-fashion or used a computer. The way weak humans beat computers is simply very different from the way computers beat computers. The issue I want to take with you, rather than Bob, involves the "99% going free" part of this. I think that if you do the best you can, you can make mistakes that hurt people and not feel like you've done something terrible. You shouldn't have to spend you life paralyzed because you can't say anything with complete certainty. If you are talking about convicting someone in a court of law you often need to use the strictest standards, but it isn't true that people need to adhere to the strictest standards in day to day life. You're not quite saying this though, you're reacting to the "lazy" part, too. And with regard to that, I agree with you. If it's possible to do a little bit of legwork and know for sure, it's not appropriate to dismissively wave one's hand and say "cheater". bruce
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.