Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:59:18 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 15:48:49, Roy Eassa wrote: > >A given computer's rating will go down significantly (even though it does not >gain or lose one iota of strength objectively) if and when its human opponents >gain anti-computer skills. > >Does that make sense? > >I guess early ratings are one thing and ACTUAL STRENGTH is a different thing >that is much harder to measure (requiring much more scientifically controlled >circumstances). > >For humans versus humans, the two things (rating and actual strength) have >tradionally been closely related, except when the player is a young child who is >improving very rapidly. > >There is significant reason to believe that RATING and actual STRENGTH can get >*way* out of sync with each other when it comes to computers, due to the extreme >relevance of the anti-computer skills (and not normal chess skills) of the >humans they have faced. Also, most (nearly all?) computers that have gotten an early rating (using fixed hardware and software) have seen that rating drop SIGNIFICANTLY over time, as humans learn better how to play well against computers. Does that mean: a) The computer is getting steadily weaker at chess? or b) Humans are quickly getting much better at chess? or c) A computer's early rating is NOT an accurate reflection of the computer's actual chess strength, but is SKEWED by the fact that humans lack a special skill that is required in order for them to score accurately against computers -- a skill that is SEPARATE and distinct from the traditional skill most human chess players have focused on? d) Some other explaination (please fill in)? Please choose one!
This page took 0.01 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.