On 15 Oct 2003 17:50:45 GMT, (Sterten) wrote:

You have missed my previous points about computer programs.

Their strength is only tactics. Their endgames , positional and long term
planning is very poor. At my level of approx 2200 they could only assess
my tactics. This is not a good basis for assessing my rating.

Most computers will beat the best humans purely on tactics if they look
deep enough.

yet, they beat 'em. And that's (still) the only thing ,
what the rating system is about.

Us humans cannot evaluate millions of positions per sec for
material, so we use other methods of playing chess like the positional side,
long range planning , postional concepts and pattern recognition etc.
Computers are completely inadequate for assessing the human method
of playing chess.

you can hardly argue that computers are so weak positionally when
they have 2800 ELO. And this almost corresponds to their strength
when playing against human opponents. Subtract 20-50 points, if you want.
Sure, computers have their strong parts and their weaknesses, but
then (some) humans have this too. Yet I didn't see people
questioning the ELO of players specialized in tactics or
positional play or closed positions or endgames or
who always play some special openings or such.

That's the thing about ELO - it doesn't matter how you win - just that
you do! If you can do it by tactics, by positional crush, by
psychology even - it's all a matter of style. Computers have their
strength and they play at 2800 ELO - but just because they do so
doesn't make them an authority to completely evaluate one's play in a
given position.



Do you understand how computers play chess ?

better than I do understand, how humans play chess


Guenter.

"K V Nash" wrote in message
...
On 15 Oct 2003 17:50:45 GMT, (Sterten) wrote:

You have missed my previous points about computer programs.

Their strength is only tactics. Their endgames , positional and long
term
planning is very poor. At my level of approx 2200 they could only
assess
my tactics. This is not a good basis for assessing my rating.

Most computers will beat the best humans purely on tactics if they look
deep enough.

yet, they beat 'em. And that's (still) the only thing ,
what the rating system is about.

Us humans cannot evaluate millions of positions per sec for
material, so we use other methods of playing chess like the positional
side,
long range planning , postional concepts and pattern recognition etc.
Computers are completely inadequate for assessing the human method
of playing chess.

you can hardly argue that computers are so weak positionally when
they have 2800 ELO. And this almost corresponds to their strength
when playing against human opponents. Subtract 20-50 points, if you want.
Sure, computers have their strong parts and their weaknesses, but
then (some) humans have this too. Yet I didn't see people
questioning the ELO of players specialized in tactics or
positional play or closed positions or endgames or
who always play some special openings or such.

That's the thing about ELO - it doesn't matter how you win - just that
you do! If you can do it by tactics, by positional crush, by
psychology even - it's all a matter of style. Computers have their
strength and they play at 2800 ELO - but just because they do so
doesn't make them an authority to completely evaluate one's play in a
given position.


Agreed.

Completely my point.

Regards



Do you understand how computers play chess ?

better than I do understand, how humans play chess


Guenter.

There are no outside influences on a game of chess so the winner is ALWAYS the
player that played the best during the game in question. The repective sums of
differences for 'perfect' play will always be in the favor of the player that
won the game. If the losing player outplays the winning player and then
blunders into a mate in one, the negative value of blundering into the mate in
one must outweigh all of the errors that were made earlier by the winner.

There are no outside influences on a game of chess so the winner is ALWAYS
the
player that played the best during the game in question. The repective sums
of
differences for 'perfect' play will always be in the favor of the player that
won the game. If the losing player outplays the winning player and then
blunders into a mate in one, the negative value of blundering into the mate
in
one must outweigh all of the errors that were made earlier by the winner.


and based on that game, what's your estimate
of the outcome of the next games of these
players ?

Even if I would agree to what you wrote,
there is still a use for rating the moves:

suppose two games with the same result,
once both play pretty well, once both play
very bad. There is reason to assume that
in future games the bad players will
score worse, and I assume, that this can be
verified statistically.

Guenter.

On 18 Oct 2003 16:10:31 GMT, (CCamp81318) wrote:

There are no outside influences on a game of chess so the winner is ALWAYS the
player that played the best during the game in question.

What about those games, and there are more than a few, where the loser
resigned in a won position?

What about those games where one player comprehensively outplays
another and then loses with a terrible blunder? If one plays 49 good
moves and then one disastrously bad move is it fair to say that he was
outplayed? What if there was a distraction that caused the blunder?

The point being, it just isn't that simple.

We also have to remember that the quality of a particular move should not be
seen in isolation, a player might try a risky (losing?) move to avoid a
clearcut draw because he needs the full point for his tournament result, or
maybe he just dislikes draws.
If for arguments sake, he does this on a regular basis with 60% result, his
ELO should benefit, but a move based rating system will punish him. (I think
that to a small extent Tal played a bit like this).
The trick of chess is, pose problems that your OPPONENT can't solve. You CAN
play speculative moves when he's in time trouble. As Simon Webb said in his
excellent little book Chess for Tigers, play the man, not the board. We play
agains human beings who have likes and dislikes, become tired and irritated,
and only the game result counts, not how you got there.
An interesting idea however, is a "unified pool". Surely we cannot be that
far away from being able to rate all games out of the same pool for
consistency?

Joe

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:19:42 -0700, Harold Buck
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On 18 Oct 2003 16:10:31 GMT, (CCamp81318) wrote:

There are no outside influences on a game of chess so the winner is ALWAYS
the
player that played the best during the game in question.

What about those games, and there are more than a few, where the loser
resigned in a won position?


Resigning is part of the game. Resigning in a won position is a HUGE
blunder, and if you do it you've ultimately played more poorly in that
game than your opponent.

What if your opponent played 1. e4 and you resigned? You haven't made a
move, but you've played poorly, certainly more poorly than your opponent.

What about those games where one player comprehensively outplays
another and then loses with a terrible blunder? If one plays 49 good
moves and then one disastrously bad move is it fair to say that he was
outplayed?

Yes, since the net result is a loss.

What if there was a distraction that caused the blunder?


Part of the game is to shut out distractions; if you don't do that in a
game and your opponent does, perhaps he has played better in that game.

The point being, it just isn't that simple.

Or maybe it is.

Or maybe it just means that you have your own special definition of
"played best" that isn't consistent with normal English useage. No
one can stop you, but I advise you not to be too surprised when people
give up talking to you, like I just have.

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On 18 Oct 2003 16:10:31 GMT, (CCamp81318) wrote:

There are no outside influences on a game of chess so the winner is ALWAYS
the
player that played the best during the game in question.

What about those games, and there are more than a few, where the loser
resigned in a won position?


Resigning is part of the game. Resigning in a won position is a HUGE
blunder, and if you do it you've ultimately played more poorly in that
game than your opponent.

What if your opponent played 1. e4 and you resigned? You haven't made a
move, but you've played poorly, certainly more poorly than your opponent.

What about those games where one player comprehensively outplays
another and then loses with a terrible blunder? If one plays 49 good
moves and then one disastrously bad move is it fair to say that he was
outplayed?

Yes, since the net result is a loss.

What if there was a distraction that caused the blunder?


Part of the game is to shut out distractions; if you don't do that in a
game and your opponent does, perhaps he has played better in that game.

The point being, it just isn't that simple.

Or maybe it is.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson