Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 02:04:14 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 02:46:34, José Carlos wrote: >On June 15, 2001 at 19:06:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>Jose Carlos wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>This is a tricky call. Who defines 'understanding' a game? >> >>This is a subjective measure. I can think of two examples to illustrate this: >> >>a) on Tim Krabbe's pages he sometimes has the topic 'computers can't play chess' >>and demonstrates positions where the computer does really awful things (in his >>eyes) >>So 'computers can't play chess'. >> >>On the other hand in his analysis he sometimes refers to a move found by the >>computer. Often this is a good move the human would have a lot of trouble >>finding. 'Humans can't play chess?' >> >>b) my own program plays several variants which it has very little understanding >>of. In one variant is just picks the move that offers it the most options not >>to get mated. In another the only heuristic it has is 'put pieces near the >>opponents king'. In a way it does not understand the game at all, by human >>standards. Yet it is at the same level of top human players. It makes awfull >>moves by human standards. Yet it often wins with those moves. >> >>> A.2. Computers and humans do not compare (like the soldier and the tank). >> >>I think this holds a lot of truth. >> >>> 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. >> >>This assumes you can express GM in term of an ELO rating. I do not think >>that is possible, or at least has any meaning. >> >>-- >>GCP > > Gian Carlo, you've quoted only parts of my post, ? The only part I left out was the very last line: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >So, as long as we don't specify the definition of 'GM strengh', there will be >discussions comparing apples with oranges. >>>>>>>>>>>>> because it was clear that you were trying to specify a definition of 'GM strength' for other discussions from the first line. > and you've taken them out of context, and I don't like that. I had no other choice considering the thread that followed! > My point was that _if you ask a GM_, he will _probably_ answer one of the > statements I marked with 'A'. And then I _suggested_ option 'B' as another > option. > You seem to imply that I stated all the sentences you've quoted here. But > what I really meant (please, read my full post) is that we cannot agree about > the question 'are computers GM strength' if we don't define what we call 'GM > strength'. I understood this. My post was a rebuttal for all definitions of a GM given, including 'what the GM would say' and what you proposed. I never implied that you would state all sentences above. In fact, I did a verbatim cut'n paste of your post save the last line. More specifically, the following line is still there: "...most chess players will probably agree to one of these possibilities..." If your meaning is not clear from my post how can it have been clear from yours? >So please, if you quote, don't take things out of context, because your >answer to my post doesn't make any sense to me, considering the original >meaning of it. What was the meaning of it? I'm not sure I understand it anymore. I thought the meaning was that one has to define 'GM strength for computers' if one wants to talk about it. My post points out that you cannot use any proposed definition (no matter who proposed it) to do that. -- GCP
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.