Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 15:31:52 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2002 at 18:08:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Well, at least we have narrowed down the scope of the disagreement to a very specific topic! :-) Preparation against a *specific* opponent, computer or human, can give a boost, I agree, but I was referring specifically to something else: that a critical "survival skill" is a strong "generic" anti-computer skill. THAT is what I was referring to. I think it's a very big issue, completely separate from -- and maybe even larger than -- the issue of opponent-specific preparation (which I agree should NOT be relevant to determining a player's true strength). On this specific point I guess we can agree to disagree. :-)
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.