Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:19:49 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 13:42:38, Mark Young wrote: >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 > No.. that shows you don't understand statistical sampling. You are saying Elo is "absolute". I can prove it is _not_. Elo is a predictor for game outcome between two players with known ratings. The game outcome is exactly the same between a 1400 and a 1600 player as it is between a 2800 and a 3000 player. You can't even compare Elo of today with Elo of 20 years ago, because the _pools_ of players are not the same. IE when a player like Kasparov bursts onto the scene, he depresses everyone's ratings a bit because someone has to lose points in order for him to earn them. But unfortunately, the rating pool is not a fixed quantity in terms of total points or average rating. And without that constant limit, you can compute ratings for Capablanca or Lasker or anybody else, but it won't mean a thing in terms of today's ratings. >Rating is the only measure in chess.....sorry. If that were the case, there would be _no_ need for tournaments. Or tennis matches. Or baseball games. Fortunately, it isn't the case yet. > >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.