Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:41:45 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 21:24:39, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Dear Dann: >Sorry if I interfere in your discussion. Nevertheless, this a public site where >its very nature is interfering and commenting. So, let me say this. >a) Clearly you are an above average IQ person. Probably the other guy is, too. >But it is not wise to talk about that even if someone in the heat of discussion >say you are fool. Clearly he is not making a serious statement about your >intelligence, so a statement that you are not because of your IQ is out of >question. Sounds a little bit weird. It Is an emotional posture even more >emotional that any kind of argument given by any. You missed my purpose. I was using logic to dispute his argument. It was also something of an internal joke to me. >B) Same can be said of your great empahasis in maths. Maths is a great tool, but >not the only one to grasp and understand the world. BTW, statistics, as a >branch of maths, has been used several times as a deceiving tool. Many times >just common sense observation gives you a fair grasp of truth and many times a >mathematical construct give you a false one. And also BTW, maths and his >performers are not less emotional than anybody else. To qualify any other kind >of reasonning as emotional is one of the most emotional thing that can be seen. When we are talking about qualities I agree with you. When we are talking about PROOFS mathematics is THE ONLY WAY to accomplish that. >C) In this case certainly GM notion can be seen from many sides. You have a >point respect the fact that a GM norm is usually a result of statistical >processing of how many games you has won to statiscally rated people, but at the >same time you certainly, in some cases, can grasp a GM quality kind of player by >just one game. I do not see exclusion between both approachs. Neither do I. But to use that as a PROOF is a mistake. It is a valid OPINION but is _not_ any proof of the thing to be demonstrated. The opinion can be right. In fact, I think it probably is correct. But to say that it has been proven is not only wrong, it is reprehensible. Of course, as you say, there is a lot of bad science and bad mathematics. But that does not excuse the fact that correct use of math and logic are what is needed to prove something. >D) Statiscally approach is a more exact measure? Well, althoug expressed or >based in numbers, is not neccesarily so. A player can get his norm just by a >narrow margin after 1000 games; maybe with another serie of 1000 he would not. >Is, then a GM? Is not? A GM is sanctioned by a body. A formal set of rules decide who gets to become one. A second (and very different measure) is "Is a player of GM strength." Both of these problems have fairly precise definitions and both are decidable. >You does not go very far sometimes. At the same time just >one game of Capablanca gives a measure of his GM quality. This is a tricky issue >at least. Capablanca and Morphy were of GM quality. Furthermore, because they were of Super GM strength and played a lot of games, it can be proven that they were GM's when they played. However, it cannot be proven that they would be of GM strength today, since: 1. The experiments are not repeatable because they are dead 2. ELO values are only valid within a given pool of talent. (Look at the results calculated for the BOC contest and you will see something funny if you compare the ELO of TSCP with Crafty). >E) Maybe the discussion could reach agreement if we differentiates between GM >kind of game and GM kind of player. I think that the biggest problem is terminology. When people say, "It has been proven that computer programs are of GM strength." I reply, "No they have not been." But they quite likely are of GM strength. They may be of greater than GM strength. It simply has not been proven yet. It will be proven when there is enough evidence. The closest program to proof is Rebel. >I suppose your opponent refers to the last >thing and you to the first. My bet: century is probable a GM kind of player on >the basis of surely GM kind of games showed until now. >Hope you will not get angry with me. I have nothing but love and respect for you (and for our pawn structure expert). >BTW, althoug I am not a mathematician my IQ is also well above average. Some >time mere writters can be so. Oh Yes, I am human too and so inclined to >emotional postures. Very. If we have no emotional postures, we're a pretty boring lot, aren't we. ;-)
This page took 0.01 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.