Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 02:48:57 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
>On January 08, 2000, Graham Laight wrote:
<much snipped from all discussions below>
>I can think of one similarity - they're both a group of players trying to win a
>game of chess under the same rules.
Hey, one SIMILARITY--pretty good! Did it take long to think of it? :)
Let me help you with another similarity that you obviously overlooked--both
groups of opponents tend to favor Queens over Pawns for material purposes!
Another astounding similarity, if you just think about it! I didn't really
think about it--I just blurted it out because the thought hit me. Someone else
can work out the profundity in the observation.
I have additional, inane similarities if you need to draw on more ammunition.
For a lost cause, however, I will not waste my time.
On the other hand, I can think of several (meaningful) DISSIMILARITIES--
1) One group of opponent players (i.e. opponents of the comps) is ALL COMPUTERS,
but the other group of opponents is ALL HUMANS.
2) NONE of the opponents in one group are opponents in the OTHER group.
3) The ratings of the ALL COMPUTER opponents in the comp-comp pool are all
derived from relatively recent 100% comp-comp prior play (referring to SSDF
ratings), not from recent comp-human prior play. On the other hand, the ratings
of the ALL HUMAN opponents in the comp-human pool would be all derived from
relatively recent human-human prior play (FIDE ratings).
4) The SSDF ratings gained by the ALL COMPUTER opponents are not FIDE ratings.
The FIDE ratings gained by the ALL HUMAN opponents are not SSDF ratings.
5) The historical connection between SSDF and FIDE ratings is absolutely zero
(SSDF ratings were seeded many, many years ago with Swedish ratings, not FIDE
ratings, of relatively low strength players) or so remote as to be of no weight
today after many years of only comp-comp play).
6) A) In statistical sampling, the results of sampling are meaningful (useful
to draw conclusions with high degree of confidence) only within the normal
(central) range of the sampled items. The results (conclusions) of sampling
become less meaningful as applied to items closer and closer to the boundaries
or range limits of the sampled items. It is mathematically improper (illogical,
without foundation) to draw conclusions about characteristics of items far
outside the sampled range. Also, when something is measured against a scale,
the accuracy of the measurements is meaningful only within the normal(central)
range of the scale.
B) Even if one assumes the initial Swedish seeding ratings were highly
comparable to FIDE ratings, there is a major problem, due to point 6A, above.
If relatively weaker Swedish players (i.e. not FIDE IM and GM strength, in
general) were used as the 'scale' against which SSDF seeded or 'initially
measured' comps to establish their relative strength versus humans, the seeding
not only was so long ago as to be of no weight in today's SSDF comp-comp
ratings, but was also established against a 'scale' of limited range and
significantly lower human rating average than the alleged ratings of modern
programs which that seeding allegedly somehow helps validate today. The problem
is that it is a violation of statistical logic to use a low level rating 'scale'
or range (i.e. the relatively low strength Swedish players) to today assert a
FIDE-equivalent comp (vs human) high level rating, which would lie virtually
(probably 100%) OUTSIDE THE LIMITS of the initial 'scale'.
>>previously, Steve Boak wrote:
>>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.
Do all blonde-haired opponent chess players have the same rating? Do all
black-haired opponent chess players have the same rating? If we held two large
comp-human Pool events, using the same comp players in each Pool but only human
opponents restricted 100% to a single Pool by hair color, would the comps all be
rated and ranked the same after each Pool concluded their many games? Yet by
your remark, since the opponents of the comps are all a group of players who
want to play and win at chess, you would expect same relative ratings and
rankings for all comp entrants in the two Pool events?
Hmmm. By reductio ad absurdum (carrying/reducing this theme to its extreme),
this leads to the following--If two distinct opponent groups (Pools) are chess
players, and if all players want to win (regardless of group), then comp chess
results (mean individual ratings and relative comp ratings) for comp players in
both groups will be the same between both groups (Pools). As ugly a syllogism
as I'd ever want to stand behind!
>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.
Ok, you have opinions, but decline to produce convincing or original evidence of
their truth. It is your right to avoid substantiating your claims. Don't
appear shocked or dismayed if others don't adopt your opinions to the exclusion
of their own without further discussion on the merits of your *and their* cases.
Don't appear shocked or dismayed if others are not goaded by character
assignations made in public accompanied by wild claims of bias without substance
(evidence, not mere speculation).
Ok, others have opinions and have published their reasoning (however valid)
regarding their opinions, and you wish to ride on their bandwagon and rest your
case on their 'proof'. Fair enough. You have a right to agree with anybody's
ideas.
My above points fulfill my burden of proof. I don't know what else to say. To
my knowledge I have addressed every major point both you and those whose
opinions you agree with have raised in an attempt to support your position that
comp-comp ratings (SSDF) have a bearing on comp-human (FIDE) ratings for comp
programs.
If you wish to debate or discuss further, it would be my pleasure. Please,
however, leave out the personal when waxing philosophical, as will I, as much as
possible. I promise to tone it down. And please address *others points* not
just repeat your own or those of others you agree with--we have heard them all
many times before, ad nauseum.
I don't expect to win you over. I don't expect to 'win' any debate. That is
not the real enjoyment of this forum--winning an argument. I do believe it
would be loads of fun to discuss new points, analyze new evidence (example the
Rebel match results), and explore the wonderful world of computer chess!
Yes--that includes the rating controversy! :)
Take care, and once again, here's to a year of interesting postings--cheers!
--Steve
>>>>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?
Point 1--true.
Question 1--now you are getting the point!
[I myself am bored to tears with banal and repetitive postings that add little
to the body already published. NOTE--This is not resentment directed at new
posters, nor at those relatively new who haven't been through the same
discussions of yore. Nor is it a lack of respectful tolerance for continual
polishing of old topics and ideas, as we learn to communicate ideas in better
fashion, or interpret them anew in light of new thoughts or evidence.]
--Steve Boak
>-g
>>--Steve
>>>>--Steve
>>>-g
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.