Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:23:25 07/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2001 at 07:47:56, José Carlos wrote: > Strength is not an absolute magnitude. We can say player A is stronger than >player B, and at most, we can figure how much stronger is A over B. But we don't >have a mathematical definition of strength that fits every subjective definition >people have. For example, if we ask GM’s (experts on the matter) who was >stronger in his best time, Botwinnik or Capablanca, we’ll hear different answers >with different reasons supporting them. > If we try to define strength difference in terms of results, we have the >problem of the number of games. To know with enough certainity degree the >relative strength of a pool of players, we need thousands of games between them, >that we don’t have. In the best case, we’d get the _relative_ strength of _that >pool_ of players in _that exact moment of time_. We know human players vary in >strength from one day to the next. Additionally, we couldn’t compare any of >those players with any other outside the pool. The definition of strength as >results implies, IMO, that it’s nonsense to compare players that have not played >each other, because the results against third players are in _different >contexts_, so it means very little. That leads to the fact that we can’t compare >players of different epochs this way. > So, it’s time to have a look at human tournaments and matches. In the past (I >prefer not to consider the present situation) the world champion was decided by >a very short number of games. First in zone tournaments, candidates and then >against the previous champion. He didn’t play _all players in the world_ neither >enough _statistically significant_ number of games. And we had no problem >considering that player the world champion. >All of this I’m speaking of, is just to try to show that it’s impossible by >definition to speak of _absolute strength_, and that we humans have not bothered >too much until now in the correctness of the practical relative strength. > Personally, I don’t find any interesting this (useless?) search for strength >measurement, neither for computers nor for humans. I stick to the old fashion >tournaments where everything was possible; where a weak player beating a strong >player was a ‘big surprise’ rather than a ‘statistical event’; where the >champion was the champion, no matter his ELO. > I’m afraid I should’ve been born in other time... in the past. :) > > José C. Very interesting. As for computer strength vs humans, the easiest way is to look at the results. For me, Tiger's performance in the Magistral was just like if a 2600+ rated GM, in good form, would have played this tournament. Actually, if someone had showed me these games, without me knowing about the tournament, I would have believed that "the 2600+ GM" showed his talent and class. Computer's play a different sort of chess then humans. And this is more clearly to be seen in comp-comp games, IMO. Now we talk about "bridges" between comps and humans, antihuman mode and playing styles. This development is interesting. Sune
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.