Author: Graham Laight
Date: 16:41:03 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 18:30:16, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 10:45:32, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 07, 2000 at 23:02:17, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >> >>>>On January 07, 2000 at 10:57:55, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>>>I just think >>>>that those who advocate using the Century V GM series as a guide to top computer >>>>strength would have been happier to read that Century had won the game 12-8, >>>>rather than losing it by that margin. >>>> >>>>-g >>> >>>Hi Graham, >> >>Hi Stephen! >> >>>There you go again. Maligning an entire group of people by imputing--without a >>>basis--that they would rather have their personal opinions validated by >>>empirical evidence than to seek or discover the truth by objective and unbiased >>>gathering of empirical evidence even if it differs from their prior opinion. >>>Sound like familiar behavior to you? It should. You do this all the time. >>> >>>In psychology, this behavior is called 'projection'. Attributing undesirable >>>characteristics to other people that one fears most in himself. >> >>This is true. People who criticise others are usually telling you more about >>themselves then they are about the other people, Stephen. > >Ahh! Mutual accord! I resemble that remark! >Let's shake hands in agreement on this one! ;-) > >> >>>The people who say 'look to the Rebel matches for evidence' are countering the >>>likes of you who happily promote opinions without much in the way of evidence or >>>logic. They say that only comp-human testing, under rigorous conditions, will >>>shed light on the dispute. >>> >>>It is you, not they, who would love to be vindicated by comp-comp match results >>>that support your opinion that top programs are GM strength versus humans. >>>Absent actual evidence by comp-human testing results, under rigorous conditions, >>>to support your own opinion (and you have come up blank there so far), you would >>>love to twist and turn each and every other event (even if illogically connected >>>to the issue) to assert it supports your own unfounded opinion. >>> >>>So being the unbiased and fair fellow that you are, ahem, you fall back to the >>>same old and deflated argument that a comp-comp result somehow bears value on >> >>If there's a major group of chess players for whom the Elo rating system does >>not work, this is bad for the Elo rating system. >> >>i.e. if, in one group, player A scores a significantly higher rating than player >>B, but when they play in another group, player B scores a significantly higher >>rating than player A, the Elo rating system is damaged. > >You presume too much. Pool 1 rates comp-comp games. Pool 2 rates comp-human >games. Within Pool 1, the ELO system does a fairly good job ranking the >members. Within Pool 2, the ELO system does a fairly good job ranking the >members. Neither the ELO system nor logic requires that measurements of two >different things be the same. If you have such logic, let's hear it. :) I can think of one similarity - they're both a group of players trying to win a game of chess under the same rules. >No one with a good grasp of statistics would draw the conclusion that the means >and standard deviations applicable to Pool 1 would apply also to Pool 2. Since >the two pools measure utterly different things (comp-comp versus comp-human) >play, there is no mathematics that can logically infer that rankings in one Pool >would match rankings in the other Pool. If you have such mathematics, let's >hear it. :) > >The overall mean and measure of spread for Pool 1 would only randomly (by >chance, not by logical conclusion) equal that for Pool 2--an unlikely event >indeed. Moreover, the relative ratings between specific comp players in Pool 1 >would only randomly (by chance, not by logical conclusion) equal that for the >same players in Pool 2. > >Analogy: Two human runners, ranked in track sports--one (A) very good at long >distance events but very poor at sprint events; the other (B) of medium ability >in either type of event. If they both enter a long distance events, A is likely >to do better than B. If they both enter sprint events, B is likely to do better >than A. Now A has not changed, nor has B changed--same runners in both event >Pools, each ranked correctly in relative ability in both types of events. Yet >their rankings switch places in the different events. There is no failure of >the ranking system. > >Why? The competitors entered two events whose compositions are vastly different >in general--sprint event contains mostly sprint specialists; distance event >contains mostly distance specialists. But in the case of chess, they're both a group of players trying to win a game of chess under the same rules. Your analogy doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid. >I am not stating that relative ratings of computer programs *must be different* >between comp-comp and comp-human. I am stating that there is no logical basis >to automatically draw the conclusion that those relative ratings *must* be the >same. > >If this scenario is tested thoroughly and enough evidence is gathered, there may >be a logical and mathematical basis for drawing the latter conclusion. Absent >such testing and evidence, there is no logical basis for the conclusion and it >is an untested hypothesis. If you have such testing and evidence, please >disclose it in detail to our readers. :) Given that the SSDF web site states it, and that SSDF members support the notion in this forum, the burden of proof should be on your side of the debate, not mine. >Hyphotheses should not be discussed as though they are true, when there is a >lack of evidence to assert they are indeed true. > >>Likewise, if, in SSDF, Tiger were to score more highly than Century, but in FIDE >>(if they were allowed to play), Century scored more highly than Tiger, one would >>have to say that one had been misguided by the ratings. >> >>>the comp-human strength debate. No proof, mind you, but it sounds good, doesn't >>>it--to your own ears. Even better, you allude that a particular comp-comp >>>result will somehow make your detractors feel bad, if comp A beats comp B, or >>>the reverse. >>> >>>Wrong! It is not they who argue that comp-comp results have meaning in the >>>comp-human debate. It is you who have fallen prey to that fallacy. You are >>>merely trying to smear them with the muck with which you have smeared yourself. >> >>Why is the suggestion that comp-comp ratings have a bearing on comp-human >>ratings "muck"? > >The muck is not the idea (suggestion) that comp-comp ratings have a bearing on >comp-human ratings. Where then is the muck of which I speak? You promoted that >idea and came under a lot of heat (persuasive counter-argument) by your >detractors. The muck is the embroglio you got yourself into by overstating your >case and using flimsy means to support your suggestion. > >You tried to defend by attacking those who disagree with you. How did you try >to attack them? You falsely attributed to them the same concern (regarding >comp-comp results and conclusions therefrom about comp-human ratings) for which >you previously were exposed and derided. Ha ha! That is the precise point they >were disagreeing with you about in the first place. They have been adamant in >pointing out that comp-comp results are meaningless for comp-human ratings. > >It should now be clear that you tried to counter your adversaries by smearing >them with the same muck you couldn't remove from yourself! You projected on >them that they would be bothered by some specific comp-comp result. Hehe! Nice >try! :) > >> >>>Sadly for you, the muck doesn't stick to those you fling it at--they don't care >>>a whit about comp-comp results in their quest for measuring the true strength of >>>comps versus humans. You think you are pulling the wool over sheep's eyes. >>>However, these sheep have seen the mud and know how to avoid it, unlike more >>>ignorant creatures that often are befouled by the paths they choose. >>> >>>But you don't stop there, do you. You can't resist trying to twist the needle a >>>little more, to prick those who disagree with you. You have to impute emotional >>>attachment to 'vindication' in your gainsayers (ahhh, projection at its >>>finest!), to demean their character in some manner and establish the hoped for >>>bias that makes you feel superior. >>> >>>As pointed out before, you demean *yourself* with your antics. Again you hoist >>>yourself with your own petard (that petard must be getting pretty worn out--you >>>might wish to order a few new ones). You try to smear your opponents by having >>>the pot call the kettle black. You fabricate the presumption that your >>>opponents actually care about a comp-comp result (when it is really you who >>>believes it matters), such that a particular comp-comp result (A beats B, or B >>>beats A) would make them feel bad and lead them to doubt their claims about >>>computers not being GM strength against strong human opponents. >>> >>>So your circular reasoning, devoid of logic in the first place, seeks to place >>>your own inadequacies on other decent human beings. Once again, the circle >>>closes and you are left facing yourself. Once again, a feeble attempt >>>boomerangs onto the initiator--you. You created the stink, it sticks to you, >>>and you can't rid yourself of it that easily by complaining about the odors of >>>others. It is yourself you are smelling. >>> >>>Your constant tirade of besmirching remarks reminds me of a snotty child trying >>>to start a fight. You go as far as you possibly can to bait others (we call >>>this trolling on ICC and other websites) and then you smirk and smile and blame >>>them for any and all misunderstandings. Good job, by the way--you are much more >>>subtle and congenial than other trolls, although just as repugnant. >>> >>>You are very good a taunting. Ever think of being an attorney? You would be >>>ecstatic at cross-examining a hostile witness when the judge gives you a rather >>>free hand. >> >>May I return the favour > >Yes, by all means (well maybe *not* by ALL means!). > >and offer you some career advice as well, Stephen? You'd >>make a good comedy script writer. > >I should think so. I get enough practice reading and writing them here. :) This is another notion that requires evidence and proof. If you wrote comedy scripts, would the listeners tune in week after week, or would they switch off after the 1st episode? -g >P.S.--there is a nice petard shop near you that I have located via web search >engine. Perhaps you are familiar with it already. I will send it to you >privately. Do you have any good suppliers of soapboxes that you could recommend >in return? > >--Steve > >> >>-g >> >>>What will it be next? Oh, I know--you will again rely on Selective Search >>>figures, again without documenting the basis for those hybrid ratings (comp-comp >>>mixed with comp-human results), and surely you will again blithely mix up >>>comp-human results at fast time controls to support your opinions about comp vs >>>human strength at slower tournament controls (40/2). Will you repeat your >>>slanders about people's motivations, solely to keep your fires fueled? I >>>believe so. >>> >>>By all means, get those new petards ordered now! I recommend the striped ones, >>>the black and white ones. You don't want to be hoisted by the same old ones, do >>>you? And you'd stink a whole lot better in new clothing, wouldn't you? >>> >>>Value-added postings. The New Year's resolution for 2000. A worthy goal for us >>>all. >>> >>>Laighten up, will you! >>> >>>--Steve Boak :)
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.