Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:42:11 09/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2002 at 02:58:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 22:44:16, David Dory wrote: > >>On September 13, 2002 at 18:39:40, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On September 13, 2002 at 15:45:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>I'm sorry but I cannot agree! Would you think taht Elo is a universal utility >>>>for calculating the chess performance of humans alone or humans and apes and >>>>flowers? Remind you of the apples and beans theorem. It doesn't make sense to >>>>make a ranking with the Elo for totally different species. MEPHISTO ROMA has >>>>nothing to do with JUNIOR 7. Besides that they both play chess. But where is the >>>>point for comparisons? >>> >>>i've played a tournament games against a GMs rated 2697.i've often played >>>first-round games in opens against beginners with a 1600 rating. it all counts >>>for my rating... why do you need to make up special rules for computer ratings >>>if we don't need it for human ratings? Easy, Martin. Your argument is true and also unfair. It's true, because the 1600 is a human chessplayer with the same design like yours, exception that you are stronger. Ok, you're older or younger, you are rich or smart, and that is surely influencing your Elo, but you're both members of the human race. And as it happened, Elo is for human chessplayers. Where it begins to become unfair, that is the point because of this specific practice Opens have their disadvantages. It's all a question of money why something like this happens, because otherwise the newcomers would no longer pay so that the advanced could play for free and also for the prizes. Opens are a democratic business delusion. Now where would you be if 5 computer programs would participate with all their GM books. If they would win 5 prizes in the first ten ranks? Would you like it, would the invited GMs and masters like it? I have serious doubts. (But that is a different debate, the one about allowed and forbidden cheating with books and tables. Humans are forbidden to use it but machines are especially allowed to do it. And all this only because of a different race, species.) >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >>Hi martin, >> To establish an elo, or a winner at a tournament, equal hardware is certainly >>not required. Only wins, losses and draws, of course. This is correct with the actual violation that with machines a totally different and alien species has entered human tournament chess. But that could not be forseen by Arpad Elo! Think of the incredible that GOD himself would participate. You know, the one with solved chess in his bag. Would you still calculate the Elo as before? I doubt that. >> >>What Rolf and I object to is testing/competing with a chess program on vastly >>different hardware, and then saying - "Yep that MyChess program has an elo of >>only 1242 - just lousy." (or whatever results are thus claimed, good or bad.) This is correct. And the SSDF is just doing it. Uri is in doubt but here we can help him. The ranking list alone, I explained it elsewhere, is a violation in itself against Science Methods. You make a ranking list, ok, and at the same time Uri and the SSDF want to tell us, that sure, Chess Champion 2175 played on much weaker hardware. This is simply bull. More honest would be a ranking only with the highest and newest 8 machines/ progs. Period. > >The fact that people can get wrong conclusions >is not a reason not to test. This is a typical SSDF and likewise ChessBase (as the most in SSDF interested company) "argument". It is nonsense and dishonest and stupid. I will show you. But don't wait for some David Copperfield magic. As always Science is something unspectacular. Only for the knowie it becomes adventurous and fun. I already elaborated earlier in rgcc a long time ago, that amateurs and laymen have a principal misunderstanding about science and scientists. They simply cant understand why scientist are too stupid to do the right things, laymen do each time. Are they boring bureaucrats or what is going on in science? Are they uninspired (LOL) dickheads who are simply not man enough to try the unthinkable, also what amateurs are always successfully trying. Not!! The answer is so basic, so deep and at the same time so unsatisfactory for non-scientists. There are certain rules in science which must be respected (at least until the next paradigm has been found), simply because otherwise you can't compare and control anything at all. This rules are written in the Methodology of Science and its different departments. They are based on Logic. Now exactly here the smartest laymen have argued that even Logic must be reformed in its old parts. Because of some spooky magig happenings. What these ignorants oversee, is the fact that different levels and angles and media do not justify to call for new logic. All the spooky parts of nature could be well integrated into science but the truth is that the main occupation in sciences is about the real world and not so much the magic and supernatural. Most of the time it's a delusion, no question about it. And it's also clear that layman must work in these spooky parts because in the real world they can't argue against sound Science. With magic however a minimum of disciples is always guaranteed. This is because the basics of logic are easy and difficult at the same time. But back to Uri and the defense of SSDF. He says that it's the fault of those who think that the ranking list meant this or that. But that is not true. We know that the responsibles for the experimental design of SSDF have been scientists so to speak. And they did it long before the development of chessprograms. It all was about chessboards with their chess hardware. But even then the different speed was of importance and SSDF tested from its beginning apples vs beens. And in the ranking list they always did what David explained and what uri accepted, they ranked in the same list apples and beens. Simply because a looong list looks better than a short with only three entries or some such. The point is that SSDF, although the testes are no scientists at all but brave laymen, pretended to have found a way to compare apples and beans. (I leave out all the incredible violations in the details of the experimental design. It was discussed elsewhere.) Rolf Tueschen > >It is clear that the players in the ssdf are software+hardware. > >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.