Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:55:32 05/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 19:17:08, Roger D Davis wrote: >On May 25, 2005 at 16:05:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 25, 2005 at 15:49:57, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On May 25, 2005 at 15:06:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 25, 2005 at 13:35:59, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 13:10:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 12:58:46, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 25, 2005 at 05:35:14, emerson tan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>s hydra now stronger than deep blue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We know Kasparov, even then, was a much stronger player than Adams is today. If >>>>>>>Hydra, supposedly stronger than Deep Blue, loses to a much weaker player, then >>>>>>>that provides a strong argument that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On the other hand, if Adams loses, then it says nothing about Hydra's strength >>>>>>>relative to Deep Blue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I guess you could always argue that Deep Blue can beat Kasparov and Kasparov can >>>>>>>beat Adams and Adams can beat Hydra and Hydra can beat Deep Blue, but it doesn't >>>>>>>seem likely. Particularly if Adams can get a convincing score. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Roger >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that you have no way to compare Adams of 2005 with Kasparov of 1997. >>>>>>Humans today have more experience against computers relative to 1997 and it is >>>>>>not clear to me that Kasparov of 1997 was stronger against computers relative to >>>>>>Adams of 2005. >>>>>> >>>>>>I also think that the fact that Kasparov lost says nothing because the 2 games >>>>>>that kasparov lost were because of stupid mistakes of him because of >>>>>>psychological reasons(resigning in a drawn position and playing a line that he >>>>>>was not ready to play). >>>>>> >>>>>>Hydra is also more known than Deeper blue was known at the time of Kasparov >>>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov could get no games of something similiar to deeper blue(deep thought >>>>>>was clearly weaker) when Adams has no problem to get games of something similiar >>>>>>to hydra. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>What I said was that it provides a strong argument. I don't think it's a matter >>>>>of certainty. I think it's a matter of making probabilistic statements, and >>>>>knowing their limitations. In addition to not knowing whether the Kasparov of >>>>>1997 was stronger against computers relative to the Adams of 2005---as you >>>>>pointed out---we don't know whether Deep Blue's style might have been >>>>>particularly deadly to Kasparov for some reason, or whether Hydra's style might >>>>>be particularly vulnerable to Adams, or whether Adams has been reading this >>>>>bulletin board and picking up pointers on the weaknesses of computers. We don't >>>>>even know how successfully Hsu's team managed to tune Deep Blue against >>>>>Kasparov. Maybe it will eventually emerge that it's always possible to tune a >>>>>strong enough hardware beast against any particular human and defeat him. Who >>>>>knows. Maybe Kasparov wouldn't freak himself out today and lose with stupid >>>>>mistakes and then again, maybe he would. >>>>> >>>>>So...lots of unknowns. >>>>> >>>>>Comparisons are interesting and inevitable. Humans will find a way of making >>>>>comparisons whether we want them to, or not. I think you can continue to 2nd >>>>>guess yourself ad infinitum about most anything. I prefer not to do that and >>>>>just stick with my statement that an Adams victory provides a strong argument >>>>>that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. Does it establish it with certainty. >>>>>Obviously not. But it agrees with commonsense, and that's the ruler that most >>>>>people will bring to the interpretation if Adams wins. I think if you're looking >>>>>for certainty, it's best to stick with mathematical proof. Everything else is >>>>>fraught with contention. >>>>> >>>>>Roger >>>> >>>>I think that one assumption that you make is wrong in all the discussion. >>>> >>>>Adams is not much weaker player than Kaspparov and the rating difference between >>>>them is only 75 elo. >>>> >>>>Here is the fide rating list: >>>> >>>>1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2812 12 1963-04-13 >>>>2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2785 25 1969-12-11 >>>>3 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2778 25 1975-03-15 >>>>4 Leko, Peter g HUN 2763 25 1979-09-08 >>>>5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2753 13 1975-06-25 >>>>6 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739 17 1969-03-18 >>>>7 Adams, Michael g ENG 2737 25 1971-11-17 >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>> >>>I think you're assuming that all ELO intervals are created equal. >>> >>>Kasparov is generally considered to be the most powerful player in the history >>>of the game. There is no other player in the world so widely known. No other >>>player commands the kind of fame that Kasparov does. >>> >>>Yet, in 1997, the year of the Deep Blue match, Kasparov was rated about 2795, >>>less than what he is today. >>> >>>Historically, I'd bet that seldom has Kasparov been 75 points stronger than the >>>#2 ranked player. Maybe never. >>> >>>So it's obvious that it takes 75 points or less to make a Kasparov. >>> >>>Roger >> >>Kasparov did not beat Karpov easily. >>13-11,12.5-11.5,12-12 are results that I remember. >> >>Later Kasparov also had problems in the beginning of the match against anand and >>the result was 4-4 and I remember that anand even won the first game in the >>match. >> >>I think that Kasparov had never big advantage relative to player number 2 or >>even player number 7. >>He was better but only slighlty better. >> >>He could win convincingly(see the match against short) but also lose(see the >>match against Kramnik). >> >>He could win a tournament but also could lose in a tournament and I remember >>that Karpov won some tournament that kasparov said that the tournament is going >>to show who is the real champion(Karpov was the fide champion at that time but >>only because Kasparov and Short did not agree to accept the conditions of >>fide). >> >>Uri > >One thing we can probably agree on: Since Deep Blue beat Kasparov and Kasparov >beats Adams, then if Adams beats Hydra it becomes the commonsense position that >Deep Blue is stronger than Hydra. No way. The Los Angeles Clippers beat the Dallas Maverics: Mar Opponent Box Score W-L High Pts High Reb Wed 2 Dallas W 101 - 92 26-32 C. Maggette 34 E. Brand 10 The Dallas Maverics beat the Detroit Pistons: Mon 28 Dallas L 88 - 95 43-27 C. Billups 26 B. Wallace 17 Can we therefore assume that the Clippers are stronger than the Pistons? Clearly not. It takes a large number of contests to determine even approximate strength. You are right in a sense that most people will believe what you say. But the problem with that is that it is not correct. >A lot of argumentation has to be provided to support any counterargument. Notice >I didn't say there was no counterargument, merely that supporting it requires >some cognitive somersaults, like falling back on confidence intervals, >possibility that Kasparov wouldn't comment errors in a rematch, possibility that >Hydra is just vulernable to Adams and wouldn't be vulnerable to other GMS, >possibility that Deep blue was tuned well against Kasparov, but wouldn't have >played as well versus other GMs, etc. A tiny contest like this cannot demonstrate a thing like that. >In fact, if the difference between Deep Blue and Kasparov was 75 points, and if >the difference between Kasparov and Adams is 75 points, and if the difference >between Adams and Hydra is 75 points, then Adams will barely win, and the >difference between Deep Blue and Hydra could still be 75 x 3 = 225 points. In >this scenario, each barely gets a win other the others, and the difference could >be 225 points between Deep Blue and Hydra. We'll never know since Deep Blue and >Hydra will never play Elo does not work like that. If the player with a larger Elo always won, there would be no need to play the games. In fact Elo cannot be used to determine the outcome of any experiment a-priori. It is only an indicator of what might happen. >"Could" is the key word here. > >I think Adams will lose, but I think it's more interesting if he wins. It is equally interesting to me either way. It's probably more surprising if he wins.
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.