Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:42:38 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 13:01:08, José Carlos wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 11:49:04, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 06:30:04, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2001 at 03:42:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On June 12, 2001 at 23:56:26, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>Many IM's and GM's have felt the teeth of these and many other programs like >>>>>Fritz, Junior, Tiger etc. >>>>> >>>>>However, it's true they lose to much lower rated players, even to me >>>>>sometimes!;) >>>> >>>>Humans have a hard time coping with this. >>>> >>>>A human who plays chess is an apple. A computer that plays chess is not an >>>>orange, but it's not quite an apple, either. You can compare them, but not >>>>perfectly. >>>> >>>>A ludicrous example: Compare an unarmed human with a tank. A tank can blow up >>>>a house at a range of over a kilometer, and can survive machine gun fire, >>>>whereas an unarmed human cannot blow up a house at a range of even one meter, >>>>and would fare badly against machine gun bullets. >>>> >>>>On the other hand, there are ditches that a tank cannot get out of, while a >>>>human might have an easy time with these ditches. >>>> >>>>You can't deny the tank its strengths just because there's a ditch a human can >>>>handle better. >>>> >>>>End of ludicrous example. Computers are getting better at being uniformly >>>>strong, but they are not now, and will probably never be, perfect human analogs. >>>> There will always be the possibility that a weak human player can say "duh" to >>>>one of these machines -- sometimes. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> Everytime this kind of argument arises, I have the same impression: There's a >>>problem of definition. What do we call 'GM strength'? >>> >>> A. If we speak of 'quality' of chess (whatever this can mean), most chess >>>players will probably agree to one of these possibilities: >>> A.1. Computers are not GM strength because they show lack of understanding >>>too many times to be considered GM's. >>> A.2. Computers and humans do not compare (like the soldier and the tank). >>> >>> B. If we speak of 'quantities' (namely ELO rating), we can certainly compare >>>humans and programs, and say _with numbers_ if programs perform like GM's or >>>not. >>> >>> So, as long as we don't specify the definition of 'GM strengh', there will be >>>discussions comparing apples with oranges. >> >>There can be no other definition then ELO. >> >>We don’t consider GM Kasparov or GM Fischer the strongest grandmaster because of >>the beautiful games they produced, even though they produced many, but so has >>many other grandmasters. We consider them the best because of the Elo ratings >>they generated, meaning wins, losses, and draws. >> >>There is on other measure in chess. You don’t get points for beauty, only for >>wins and draws. > > Yes there is. Actually _there are_. In chess, you can measure a lot of things. >Tactical ability, endgame mastery, opening knowledge, strategycal smartness, >etc... The ELO rating is only one measure, but not the only one. For example, >there's no ELO for Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein. How then do you know how >strong they were? > If chess was only a sport, the ELO would be strength measure with no doubt. >But chess is... art? science? so many things... :) > Seriously, we need to state clearly what definition of 'GM strength' we are >using to have reasonble discussions. > > José C. You are incorrect..... you can calculate Elo for all past players, Because we know the games they won, lost and drew....If you would like to see them go to www.chessmetrics.com Rating is the only measure in chess.....sorry. Below are the ratings of the top players in 1930 as an example. Chessmetrics Ratings: January 1st, 1930 About these ratings Rank Player Rating Age 1 Alekhine, Alexander 2749 37 2 Lasker, Emanuel 2732 61 3 Capablanca, Jose 2700 41 4 Vidmar, Milan (Sr.) 2673 44 5 Nimzowitsch, Aaron 2669 43 6 Bogoljubow, Efim 2646 30 7 Spielmann, Rudolf 2621 46 8 Rubinstein, Akiba 2620 47 9 Torre, Carlos 2603 24 10 Euwe, Max 2601 28 11 Tartakower, Saviely 2589 42 12 Maroczy, Geza 2588 59 13 Gruenfeld, Ernst 2578 36 14 Levenfish, Grigory 2565 40 15 Marshall, Frank 2557 52 16 Becker, Albert 2554 33 17 Verlinsky, Boris 2550 41 18 Kostic, Boris 2548 42 19 Romanovsky, Peter 2544 37 20 Mattison, Hermanis 2541 35 21 Johner, Paul 2533 42 22 Rabinovich, Ilya 2533 38 23 Treybal, Karel 2524 44 24 Ahues, Carl 2523 46 25 Bohatirchuk, Fedor 2523 37 26 Saemisch, Friedrich 2523 33 27 Steiner, Lajos 2520 26 28 Asztalos, Lajos 2510 40 29 Vajda, Arpad 2508 33 30 Canal, Esteban 2507 33 31 Monticelli, Mario 2503 27 32 Przepiorka, David 2500 49 33 Takacs, Sandor 2494 36 34 Colle, Edgar 2491 32 35 Gilg, Karl 2484 28 36 Yates, Frederick 2483 45 37 Kmoch, Hans 2480 35 38 Opocensky, Karel 2476 37 39 Brinckmann, Alfred 2476 38 40 Von Holzhausen, Walter 2448 53 41 Thomas, George A. 2445 48 42 Michell, Reginald 2431 43 Vukovic, Vladimir 2426 31 44 Havasi, Kornel 2410 37 45 Rosselli, Stefano 2384 52 46 Menchik, Vera 2358 23 47 Prokes, Ladislav 2328 45
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.