Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:24:40 05/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2005 at 22:37:49, Roger D Davis wrote: >On May 09, 2005 at 13:04:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On May 09, 2005 at 10:44:41, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2005 at 09:21:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 09, 2005 at 09:12:53, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 09, 2005 at 08:42:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 09, 2005 at 07:45:14, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>IN >>>>>>>fact, a guy with a 500 IQ (were such a thing possible) could probably play chess >>>>>>>like a guy with a 100 IQ...on his first game. I say this because intelligence, >>>>>>>broadly conceived, is the capacity to acquire knowledge in any particular >>>>>>>domain. Intelligence is concerned with rates. Accordingly, you could be the most >>>>>>>intelligent person in the world, but with no experience, you'll lose. But you'll >>>>>>>probably learn the game faster than anybody. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Roger >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That is wrong. If it were true then academics and doctors with high intelligence >>>>>>would improve in chess over experience after some years. But this is easily >>>>>>refutated. I know a lot of chessclubs and the genuine chess talent will always >>>>>>play above the level of intelligent people without a special chess talent. So >>>>>>you can find many doctors and professors playing in low teams while the chess >>>>>>talents play in superior classes. >>>>>> >>>>>>I could still accept your general thesis. But we can't research it because most >>>>>>intelligent people and academics don't play chess for years (anymore after their >>>>>>youth). Perhaps the theory should go like this: >>>>>> >>>>>>- people with high intelligence and already great talent stop playing in their >>>>>>younger age because they understand what all seperates them from highest chess >>>>>>genius; they do also avoid to get lost in the more or less starving scene of >>>>>>chess where they risk to become cases for social welfare. Other than in the >>>>>>former SU states where chess was a highly supporte profession, you must get >>>>>>attractive jobs to be able to make a living for your own family. Therefore a lot >>>>>>of high talents simply stopped playing. They all would be better than the >>>>>>average club players and they could prove your thesis. >>>>>> >>>>>>- people with high intelligence and chess talent but without great perspectives >>>>>>in either chess or science will sty in the chess scene but they have no chance >>>>>>to (ever) get really successful in chess [that is the sample I was refering to >>>>>>above] >>>>> >>>>>Sorry Rolf, I couldn't understand your counterproposal. I know English is your >>>>>2nd language. Perhaps you could rephrase it? >>>>> >>>>>Roger >>>> >>>> >>>>If English were your first language then you could understand me without >>>>problem. Sorry, that I can't rephrase it because this is already my best version >>>>of the English. >>> >>> >>>No harm done. No need to apologize. >>> >>>Roger >> >>It's just science which must suffer again. Same with Hsu, same with you. ;) > >There's no proof your follow up constitutes science. ;) If you close your eyes even this Earth doesn't exist. Here once again in slow-motion: There was a show between the chess of a Machine and the chess of Kasparov. Kasparov was the exclusive guest of IBM/Hsu. Then suddenly IBM/Hsu became a bit impolite and disturbed Kasparov in his concentration, in fact Kasparov was even more confused than already by the moves of the machine in game 2. Now, it is basic science, no rocket science is required to understand this, that if you mistreat your "guest", we call him "client" in social sciences, then you can't research your original variables - - except your main interest was a study about the possibilities for machine's operators to disturb (mistreat) a human chessplayer. To be clear about this, I did never say that Hsu et al weren't excellent magicians in busting someone like Kasparov. - But this had exactly zero to do with the average chess, their machine played. See game 1 for further details... Now, you can well go into ad-hominem mode instead of occupying yourself with these questions. You could also say that you can't read my weak English. Then people would see that it's alone your problem, not mine. Experts like Bob Hyatt and others always claimed that the 1997 event wasn't by far a scientifical experiment, but it was a "normal" chess match. That is partly true and mostly wishful thinking. Of course this wasn't a classical experiment, it was more a real life research, here about chess between machine and human players. But it was the simple task for the scientists to keep control over such important factors as fairness towards the human player who 1) had a machine as opponent, he couldn't see but only through its chess moves 2) had only the people in the IBM/Hsu team as talking partners. If something disturbed him. (NB that disturbances were clearly forbidden by the contracts!) In that moment, when Kasparov declared resp. asked the team about the play of the machine in game 2, the team should have talked to him. NB that the machine itself as player could never be "disturbed" if its team talked to its opponent! That is all so basic that every rational being can understand what I'm talking about. What would it mean, if the team suddenly discovered that Kasparov is confused and that they could further disturb him by ignoring his questions? Well, that would be a sensational match strategy but it wouldn't prove anything at all about the chess qualities of their machine. And here is the end of the story. IBM/Hsu won a match, NOT through the machine's chess, but through the psycho-warrior cleverness of the machine's eager helpers... Nobody is foced to agree. But all scientists outside the USA do agree. Namely that the result meant nothing at all. Or, like I stated it: IBM didn't win a single game in that match (through its own class) but Kasparov threw games due to the rising confusion caused by the machine's helpers AND (one must tell the truth) his own weakness for superstitious things. Thanks for the conversation, Roger. ;)
This page took 0.01 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.