Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:58:16 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 16:22:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 15:26:38, James Swafford wrote: > >>On July 31, 2002 at 13:52:41, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Dann: >>>Am I wrong or there is a contradiction between these two sentences by you?: >>> >>>"But I am not ready to concede >>>equal ability until it is mathematically demonstrated...." >>> >>>And then: >>> >>>"I am not arguing that computers are NOT GM ability either. Their true strength >>>may be over 2600 on good hardware..". >> >>He's not contradicting himself. They may be, they not be... he just wants >>"proof in the numbers". > >And how could there be proof - if computers do never participate in average >competitions of tournament chess? The inflation of Elo-numbers has no valid >basis. Without competition human chessplayers did not even _begin_ preparations >to develop methods of anti-computerchess. Then it would be obvious that a >general GM-level on tournament time control is a big myst. It is also possible that even with special preparation and anticomputer tactics the GMs will still not prove superior. Remember that we are not asking: "Is the computer the equal of Kramnik or Anand?" We are asking (rather): "Is the computer playing at GM level ability?" which is an absurdly easier bar to jump over. >(BTW the actually good performance of Hiarcs in Argentina is a good proof for my >statements. Or is anyone here present who wants to declare that the masters >there had trained on the _specific_ machine before? Or that these masters had a >specific incentive to learn alternative chess for machines the whole year over? >Of course not.) > >So - without competition with _motivated_ and _trained_ GM our machines can't >develop GM play. Comp vs comp chess can't constitute GM chess. That is why SSDF >Elo numbers are based on circular logic without GM chess validation. I don't think this particular argument holds. Some GMs from China or India may come to Europe to play against a group of European GMs they have never played against. The groups may not have time to specially prepare adequately for the opposing groups. But we can still get some data from the result. Preparation may change things if they rematch, but we will still accept that result. Therefore, I think we must accept the Hiarcs result at face value. It is the same situation.
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.