Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 11:06:15 05/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 19:55:32, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. > Yeah, I'm not saying it's correct...that's not my position at all. I'm not even sure what "correct" would be. I just say that there are several levels of rigor that will be brought to the situation. Commonsense is one, statistics is another. >>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. Right. > >>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. Right, that's why I said "could" is the key word. > >>"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.