Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:56:50 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 17:38:54, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 16:58:16, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > >The experts deny for the moment. > > >>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. > >No! Remember what I wrote about _real_ preparation for anti machine chess. >Humans tend to optimalize in group transfer processes. So if Kramnik finds >something successful, even you could exploit it - - _because_ you play human >chess. Machines can't do this although operators and advisors _know_ exactly >Kramnik's discovery. The difference! Do you really imagine that these chess players have never played against Hiarcs before? I imagine that all of them have tried it. If they haven't then whose fault is it that they were beaten? Anyone with money in their pocket can go and get a copy. >>>(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. > >Objection. False category! Chinese players do know European players very well >and vice versa. That's the "scandal" with completely unknown and newborn >programs! This is simply not possible in human chess. Not really with computer chess either, since you can buy the programs if you like. Even the updated versions do not change much in play. >Here the factors are: > 1. Human chess. 2. Internet distribution of games almost daily. > > > >>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. > >Objection! Of course we would accept show events and their results. But we can't >accept human tournaments with such alien participation. It's a show in a serious >event. If we hid the players from each other and they saw only the board, then what does it matter? It's opponent against opponent and all that matters is the board. The computer has no special magic and neither does the GM. >>Therefore, I think we must accept the Hiarcs result at face value. It is the >>same situation. > >I might come to the acceptance but not on the basis of the "allegedly same >situation", because it's not the same. The lack of identity is still the >unsolved problem in computerchess. And my special theses is that the _actual_ >face value is based on surprise factor and usually forbidden use of books and >table bases. Viewed from human chess. It's not identical. But it's close enough. If something is forbidden or allowed, then the rules should be followed. If rules were broken, then prizes should be withdrawn. I suspect that you are only being overly dramatic.
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.