Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:53:50 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 22:18:58, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 13:39:03, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 11:43:10, Drazen Marovic wrote: >> >>> The sad thing is, if rebel had lost by a measly half point countless here >>>would still try to deny comps gm strength. >> >>There is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the assertion either way. >> >>The 1/2 point swing in the other direction (for the comp) is no different. But >>in any case, there are certainly not enough games to make a logical statement. >>Only an emotional one. > >That is a false dichotomy. I know it very well, because it was the foundation of >my whole world, twenty years ago. Sorry if that sounds condescending, but I am >taking the opportunity to say a few things. > >Between logic and emotion is a vast grey area in which people must function. For >example, I KNOW, without needing hard proof, that Shakspeare was a better poet >than I. More accurately, I JUDGE him to be better, using my own judgement, and I >believe my judgement is adequate in this case, without proof. That is (already) a fact -- unless you are lying. That is because "better poet" cannot be measured except by the heart. (Skeptics please witness the opening of the movie "Dead Poet's Society." >It is not logic, >but many important decisions are made in this realm! Will you accept this much? I accept all that you say so far. But without logic you cannot prove things. >Judgement is a tool for measuring chess strength too, especially the judgement >of Grandmasters. The opinion of a GM is a datum, which while not as hard as a >match score, is more interesting, for one, and more enlightening with respect to >the real chess-issues that interest us. And in the judgement of a GM, some programs appear to play as strongly as GM's. I respect this subjective opinion, which may very well be correct. However, it does not establish any facts. If you are aware of this: 'Human experts can be mistaken' Then you understand that proof cannot be formed from an opinion, unless the opinion has been tested. >Well, chess is somewhere between a coin-toss and poetry, and I think the >computer-chess world, meaning you and Christophe Theron and others, are making >some interesting and important mistakes in its application of statistics, which >I might write about sometime. Of course I can be wrong. And the beauty of chess cannot be measured with any instrument besides the human brain. But the ability of programs can be measured. Precisely, exactly, and with a horrible clinical coldness that can be exceeded only by a forgotten hallway of an insane assylum. >You say that THE MATCH SCORE ITSELF is not enough to make a decision. Yes, and >that is EXACTLY what makes the Grandmaster's JUDGEMENT so valuable in such >cases! Do you understand this, and agree? Of course. >My opinion is that he was not doing statistics, he was just posting his >intuition and judgement, for what its worth. How much is it worth? I would >usually weigh a Grandmaster's (carefully considered) opinion more highly than >the match score itself, within reason. I agree with this also (to a degree). There is something funny that can happen though. A chess program is in book, and so it plays like Capablanca and Morphy (after all, that's where the moves in the book came from). The program falls out of book, and makes a beautiful move that eventually wins a rook and hence the game! However, the program had a negative eval and only discovered the capture two plies later. A human observer saw the initial move out of book and thought it was a master stroke instead of an accident. Once the rook was pulled, it was all over except for the shouting. But really, it was an accident. The problem in these discussions is (I think) one of semantics. I am arguing that an opinion does not prove something. Not even an expert opinion. After all, at one time the scientific evidence and the best minds of the day believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the stars and planets were glued to crystal spheres. Aristotle himself would have told you as much. Now, when the top expert in the world says something he absolutely must be right? No. Anyone -- even the world's smartest man in the expertise of his finest ability can be mistaken. But time will tell in events like this.
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.