Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:08:11 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 17:16:33, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 17, 2002 at 16:46:42, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On April 17, 2002 at 16:24:22, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 17, 2002 at 15:59:18, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>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)? >>> >>>A computer with constant hardware and software should not be allowed to get a >>>rating against humans if it cannot change it's evaluation function and players >>>can repeat similiar strategies to beat it. >>> >>>If the evaluation function is not changed after learning from games then it >>>should not get a rating without changes in the software. >>> >>>Usually changing the evaluation is done by the programmers. >>>I think that it can also be done by automatic learning of the program from >>>games. >>> >>>I think that the program also need to be private in order to get a rating >>>because in other cases the player may buy the machine and repeat a game that the >>>machine even did not know about. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I was not actually referring to a *specific* human learning the weaknesses of a >>*specific* program, but rather to the likelihood that most GMs will improve >>their overall anti-computer abilities with time, and some will improve this >>ability by a LOT. >> >>Take a strong program running on a fast PC -- I'll agree it could rate 2700 in >>current GM matches -- and put the only copy of it in a vault for 6 years. Let >>no human play it or study it during that time. Let the best 3 anti-computer GMs >>of the year 2008 play matches against it. >> >>I think there's a very significant probability that that SAME program running on >>that SAME hardware would then achieve a rating of 2500. Did it get 200 points >>weaker sitting in the vault? > > > >Imho, PART OF the reason computers have scored so well against GMs in the past 2 >years is that GMs have not yet learned a necessary survival skill -- one that is >SEPARATE from traditional chess skill -- that is required ALONG WITH their chess >skill in order to play computers adequately. The reason GMs have not learned >this skill is simply that it has not been required until very recently, whereas >standard chess skills have been required for centuries in order to defeat >humans. > >Interestingly, GMs have also developed a different survival skill -- >psychological in nature -- that IS required to do well against other human GMs >but is NOT required to do well against computers. I am not sure if your assumption is correct. I suspect that only knowing that the opponent is computer is not enough and good anti computer experts need to use different strategy against different computers. Uri
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.