http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

RL

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

RL

The biggest flaw with that study is that they used Crafty for
their analysis. They should have used a much stronger engine.

All this study shows is that Capablanca played moves that
agrees with a relatively weak chess engine.

J.Lohner

"Inconnux" wrote in message
news:tNwXh.27$JF6.10@edtnps90...

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

RL

The biggest flaw with that study is that they used Crafty for
their analysis. They should have used a much stronger engine.

All this study shows is that Capablanca played moves that
agrees with a relatively weak chess engine.

J.Lohner



Lohner, you're a 1300 rated IMBECILE! You're in no position to call a
program that plays 2600 elo "weak". You will never in your life even BEGIN
to understand the rudiments of any of Capablanca's games.

JMR

raylopez99 wrote:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

That article is, frankly, junk: I'm surprised it was ever accepted for
an academic conference.

They haven't determined the strongest champion of all time: they've
determined which World Champion plays most like a crippled version of
Crafty. That's better than working out which World Champion plays
most like me but not much better. See Soren Riis's rebuttal

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3465


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Toy (TM): it's like a fun
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ child's toy but it's moist!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
raylopez99 wrote:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

That article is, frankly, junk: I'm surprised it was ever accepted for
an academic conference.

They haven't determined the strongest champion of all time: they've
determined which World Champion plays most like a crippled version of
Crafty. That's better than working out which World Champion plays
most like me but not much better. See Soren Riis's rebuttal

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3465



I don't think Riis or you understood the original article. The
researchers addressed in detail the objection that Crafty is not
the ultimate in determining the best move - obviously
we can find some specific positions where the version of
Crafty used in the analysis is wrong, but that is not a
fundamental objection.

There is much very interesting and original work
in the article - perhaps the Chessbase synopsis concentrates
excessively on the findings rather than on the methodology,
since it makes a better story. Certainly there were analyses
that they didn't do which should get done. That's just the normal
way that research advances. In any case, the approaches
investigated in the article are far preferable to the "historical
ELO" or "chessmetics" nonsense, which are *completely*
lacking in rigor of any kind.

On Apr 24, 7:55 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:

All this study shows is that Capablanca played moves that
agrees with a relatively weak chess engine.

So does this mean that if you could find a chess engine
weak enough, my moves would agree even more? Then
I would rate even higher than all these world champions,
right?

-- help bot

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

It seems likely that whatever conclusions may be
drawn from such studies are largely determined by
the way in which the study is constructed, which
is just the opposite of what is supposedly desired
(i.e. computer-like objectivity).

For instance, had the study shown "desirable"
results right off the bat, the need to compensate
for the simplicity of position would never have
even occurred. If it turned out that, say, GM
Capablanca was more accurate because he
preferred simple positions, this could have been
interpreted as meaning he was simply the
strongest player; instead, there arose an
"emotional need" to compensate for some
assumed flaw, as if his choice of style were
somehow unfair to the other contenders.

What is never shown and rarely mentioned
is all the tweaking of the various formulae
that goes on before finalizing the charts and
results presented to us as readers, and this
invisible stuff is precisely what determines
the final rankings.

-- help bot

On Apr 25, 6:34 am, "David Kane" wrote:

That article is, frankly, junk: I'm surprised it was ever accepted for
an academic conference.

They haven't determined the strongest champion of all time: they've
determined which World Champion plays most like a crippled version of
Crafty. That's better than working out which World Champion plays
most like me but not much better. See Soren Riis's rebuttal

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3465

I don't think Riis or you understood the original article. The
researchers addressed in detail the objection that Crafty is not
the ultimate in determining the best move - obviously
we can find some specific positions where the version of
Crafty used in the analysis is wrong, but that is not a
fundamental objection.

You know, if you took the games of a typical (1300) rated
player and checked them with a dumbed-down-Crafty (1500),
you might get some useful information, but not nearly as
much as hoped for. But when you take the games of the
world champions and check them with a program which is
short of 2800, you get mainly garbage, combined with many
instances where a tactical oversight is correctly pinpointed.

You also penalize those players who *deliberately* chose
to play what they knew to be sub-optimal moves, for
whatever reason. I just did this myself at RedHotPawn,
choosing to grab a Knight rather than leap in with another
piece to set up a 95%-certain mating net. Why? Because
while the mating net was around 95% certain, the capture
of the free piece was 100% certain (unless I have lost my
mind)! When I spot another mating net, things should be
simple enough for me to get the 100% certainty I desire,
and having captured yet another piece, this is all but
inevitable, barring my opponent's resignation.

Another item which these statistical analyses overlook
is the deliberate gift of, say, a half-point. These have
been known to occur in world championship level play,
and of course the "nice guys" will be penalized for not
being "tough players", despite clinching the match
with their action.

In short, what can be learned is who was least prone
to tactical blunders, and apparently, whose style leans
most toward a sizable gap between what the program
sees as the #1 optimal move, and #2 -- something I
think may be termed the sharpness of play. For one
example, I am playing a game at RedHot now where
I had to decide whether to develop my QB "normally"
via ...d6 and then B-moves somewhere, or fianchetto
via ...b6 and B-b7. It was a toss-up, since it makes
no difference whatever to the outcome. I expect a
computer would see both moves as being nearly
equal, weighing them in such a way as to slightly
favor the move which gives the Bishop immediate
control of squares, though this immediacy is quite
irrelevant to the true value of the moves.

I wonder just how much time, and to what depth
the moves were analyzed before scoring them. I
recall that often a player's move may be scored poorly,
but if executed and stepped forward, a program may
change its mind completely about this, suddenly
realizing it had overlooked something.

-- help bot

On Apr 25, 4:46 am, David Richerby
wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

This was the article I was thinking of, per my earlier post, not the
Jeff Sonas article.

That article is, frankly, junk: I'm surprised it was ever accepted for
an academic conference.

I am in the process of reading this article now, and just
noticed a laughably absurd claim by the authors: that
the truncated Crafty used would naturally rank all
superior programs in reverse order. LOL! This is the
most ignorant comment I have seen since before I began
ignoring many recent postings by the Evans ratpack.

Of course, it is not the strength, but rather the
*similarity in style*
which would actually determine how truncated Crafty
ranks *all* other programs. It is theoretically possible
for Crafty to rank Rybka near the top, penalizing it
(unfairly) only for the few moves which it correctly sees
but where Crafty would blunder horribly. All this would
require is that Rybka *usually* agree with Crafty, but
when they disagree, for Rybka to always be right. The
gap in ratings could easily be 400 points, if the key
differences of opinion were instant game-losers.

I am beginning to get the impression that people who
play around with statistics in an attempt to demonstrate
something, are loony, as well as utterly incompetent in
applying statistics rationally.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 24, 7:55 pm, "Inconnux" wrote:

All this study shows is that Capablanca played moves that
agrees with a relatively weak chess engine.

So does this mean that if you could find a chess engine
weak enough, my moves would agree even more? Then
I would rate even higher than all these world champions,
right?

-- help bot

lol its too bad Sannys Getclubbed program doesn't do analysis

J.Lohner