Author: José Carlos
Date: 12:12:34 02/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2002 at 14:55:23, Albert Silver wrote: >On February 22, 2002 at 14:33:07, Paul Doire wrote: > >>If Bobby Fisher at his peak was about 2800 elo and now Kasparov >>is about 2820 elo (+/- 20-30 elo)....then GM's haven't improved >>nearly as much as programs have over the last 20-30 years. > >2800 Elo isn't some absolute number, it is a score that says how well that >player is doing against others. > >Suppose Fischer were running the 100 meters against several other runners, and >suppose he were faster than all of them. His Elo wouldn't say his time in the >100 meters, it would only say by how much he was beating the others. Now just >suppose Spassky is running at 10.5 seconds (though his rating would also only >say how well he was doing compared to others), well Fischer's rating would say >that he was beating Spassky and others as fast as Spassky by about 0.3 seconds, >without ever saying how fast anyone went. > >Now suppose time passes and Kasparov's rating says he too is about 0.3 seconds >faster at the 100 meters than the second best: Kramnik. Does this mean that both >Kasparov and Fischer are running at the same speed? Suppose I tell you that >although the rating can't show it, Kramnik is actually doing the 100 meters in >9.5 seconds. > >The above scenario is exactly why you cannot possibly compare ratings of >different periods in time. > > Albert > > >> >>Isn't it quite likely that at the current rate of improvement for >>computer chess (just looking at the last 10 years)...that inevitably >>between advances in hardware and software a computer will be world champion >>caliber and/or World Champion in less than another 10 years? >> >>Even if GM's improve they will not improve at nearly the same pace as computer >>chess . >> >>Paul You're correct of course, but maybe this analogy is more clear: compare chess to basketball. How do you know when a basketball team is better than other? Only playing. If two teams play in the same competition and team A finishes 1st and team B finishes 13rd you can say (with a given dregree of certainity, depending on the number of games, etc.) that A is better than B. But how can you compare todays Lakers to 1973 Lakers? You don't have a mathematical (ELO) way to compare them, just an opinion. The same applies to chess. Nobody can give a mathematical proof of Capablanca being stronger/weaker than Van Welly. Only opinions are possible. Computer chess is different in the sense that programs don't change (if we don't consider the learning techniques) so you can always run a tournament and compare them. But humans play different every day! And you can't bring up Fisher-1972(Reikjavik) to play now... :( 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.