Author: Mark Young
Date: 11:54:52 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 14:19:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. What the hell are you talking about... I never said that. When Did I ever say ratings were """"""""ABSOLUTE""""""""""". I said you can calculate ratings for past players....and Ratings is the only measure we use in chess. I NEVER said RATINGS are ABSOLUTE.... Ratings are calculated for that pool of players, If you think the rankings are incorrect you better take a look at the past list because you will find what history tell us were the strongest players of the day are also RANKED #1 on the repective lists. The Rating numbers themselve don't mean anything 2700,2800,2900 etc. What matters is the point spread from one player to the next. Don't put words in my mouth and then tell me I don' t understand. > > > > >>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.