Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 00:34:18 05/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2005 at 05:24:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. ;) Doesn't really seem like much of a conversation, Rolf. Seems more like you talking to yourself now. ;) Roger
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.