Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:10:12 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 14:54:58, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 17, 2002 at 14:19:02, Chris Carson wrote: > >>feel free to disagree with me. I am often wrong and people catch me at >>it. :) I get frustrated too with the hype and carried away at times. >> > > >Chris, > >I think my view is quite moderate and is not hype; do you agree? : > >I do not think we can be SURE whether or not PCs are truly 2650+ FIDE. I think >that there is definitely SOME evidence that they are, but that there has simply >not been a sufficient number of games against GMs who are relatively >well-prepared and motivated. The evidence that exists does not come close to >passing the typical requirements of a decent scientific experiment in which >extraneous factors are well-controlled. (BTW, I DO think the top PC programs on >the fastest PCs are more than 50% likely to be over 2500 FIDE.) Older GMs in >particular have not spent a sufficient percentage of their in the presence of >strong computers to be well prepared psychologically, much less to have >developed very good anti-computer techniques. > >You have a PhD and obviously know what it means to really, intensely study some >highly difficult topic for months and months (even years). One's knowledge and >skill-set in that field grow enormously as a result of such work. I just don't >think _any_ GMs have done substantial amounts of intense work thus far on >anti-computer chess techniques. I think it's highly likely that at least a few >younger GMs WILL undertake such an effort in the next 5 or 10 years, especially >if there is any good motivation to do so (money, for example). Also, very young >GMs will have spent a good chunk of their careers in the presence of strong PCs. > >Even though computers are getting faster all the time and the software is >improving in its anti-human methods, I still think the scenario described above >(SOME but certainly not ALL GMs really cracking down and becoming much better at >anti-computer techniques) leads to a greater-than-50% likelihood that there will >be at least SOME GMs (or strong IMs) in the next 10 years who will consistently >outscore the top programs running on the fastest PCs. > >I think it is more in the style of hype when somebody says that humans will >NEVER learn to do something (I am not saying that this is what YOU claim, but >that some claim this). > > -Roy. What would the following hypothetical scenario imply for a set of computers' ratings: They consistently score 70% against a large set of GMs and IMs who are older or not particularly well-studied in anti-computer chess. They consistently score 45% against a small set of GMs and IMs who are younger and pretty good at anti-computer chess. They consistenly score 30% against a very small set of GMs and IMs who are very well-versed and anti-computer chess. Interestingly, these particular GMs and IMs on average somewhat LOWER rated (FIDE, against humans) than the ones described earlier. For the purpose of determining the computer's real strength, might it make sense to throw out the computer's results against those who are not well-prepared? Before you answer too quickly, consider this: If you do NOT throw out these results, each computer's rating will FALL with time as more humans acquire good anti-computer skills (other things being held steady). Is that computer really getting WEAKER, or are the humans just acquiring a previously-lacking set of skills that pertain to computer chess (while NOT improving their normal chess skills)?
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.