Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:34:04 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 05:04:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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 Ok, maybe it was me that misunderstood you. ;) José C.
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.