Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:43:32 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 08:57:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 06:22:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 23:34:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2003 at 05:21:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2003 at 04:38:32, Alastair Scott wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 14:41:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>the elo system has no defined 0. results are only defined in terms of wins and >>>>>>losses. For example, suppose one defined the average elo to be 1600, and placed >>>>>>Kramnik, Kasparov, and Shirov in a room together and had them play 5000 games. >>>>>>Kasparov's rating would be 1650 at best. Or we could define the 0 to be 0 - >>>>>>Kasparov would have a rating of 1200, and some people would have negative >>>>>>rating! The whole thing is just like potential energy in physics: only >>>>>>differences in the rating system are meaningful. >>>>> >>>>>Excellent explanation, and there is also the Flynn effect (such rating systems >>>>>tend to progressively inflate the numbers over time), which I believe has never >>>>>been explained. >>>> >>>>How do you know they inflate if you can't compare them? >>>> >>>>-S. >>>> >>> >>>One simple idea is to compare the "average" rating for the pool, over >>>time. IE the average "IQ" is not going up, so the average rating should >>>not go up since it is a relative measure among the pool members. If it does >>>go up, it has to be inflation since not _everybody_ is going to improve >>>steadily... >> >>Actually it goes up due to learning by doing, hence the testers will always >>adapt their tests to the actual level of information - based on the fact that >>the average as such - like you've stated - does NOT change. The average of >>intelligence. >> >>The same shoud be done with the Elo listing. The rise of the numbers on the top >>implies a rising "strength" which is false! The strength is NOT rising but the >>informational level about chess is still making progress. >> >>Strength is not identical with historic progress because historic levels rise >>for the whole population, but not their 'strength'. >> >>It's clear that the strong players and more their claque try to confuse about >>the historical relativity of their performance. But Kasparov is not stronger >>than Fischer, actually he's already weaker than Kramnik, by 100 Elo points. This >>is ridiculous to assume. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >I think that this subjext has nothing to do with intelligence. > >There are very intelligent people who are weak chess players because they have >no experience in chess or because their memory is not good enough to imagine the >position 10 plies later correctly. Exactly. But Uri, please, I always like to debate with you. Here you have overseen that the "IQ", not invented by me here in the debate, was just an example for a special test methodology. NOT because IQ now was equalized to chess. That wasn't the point. I know this because I've read the whole thread here. > >I think that humans have the potential to improve by better training methods. For sure. Without training no GM. Or let's better say no good or top GM. If Anand would have been trained in the USSR, he would be World Champion for sure. > >Many years ago people could not use computers to train and today they can do it >so it is logical to believe that players of today can be better not because they >are more intelligent but because they have more options to train. It's only logical if you believe that inborn talents or genius could be made even better with training. But this is false. Correct is that also a geius must train to finally perform as a top GM. Training or call it experience over the years. Fischer was the same genius in the mid 50s but he wasn't a top GM yet. Rolf Tueschen > >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.