Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:46:39 07/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2001 at 13:08:08, Terry McCracken wrote: >On July 15, 2001 at 12:57:28, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 15, 2001 at 12:49:55, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2001 at 12:24:01, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On July 15, 2001 at 10:57:47, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 15, 2001 at 07:58:10, odell hall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Don't do what you did on the Van Diel Wiel match and Renig, you said if rebel >>>>>>beat Van Der Wiel then computers are GM's , But you back out. >>>>> >>>>>First Dr. Hyatt is away for a week. So he won't even see you message! Didn't you >>>>>read he was off for a holiday? >>>>> >>>>>Second, GM John van der Wiel played a very short match with Rebel Century, and >>>>>the first time he'd ever lost a match to computer, and that was by a mere point. >>>>> >>>>>GM John van der Wiel is an excellent player but not a 2600+ GM, at least not at >>>>>present. Yet he could turn a second match with Rebel Century around I'm sure. >>>>>Not putting down Rebel, it's an excellent chess program, but not a World Class >>>>>GM 2600+, at least not yet!;) >>>>> >>>>>Third, GM Huebner isn't a young man anymore, so I doubt he can play like he is! >>>> >>>>I don't understand your point. GM Huebner is a active Grandmaster with a current >>>>Fide Rating of 2600+. So GM Huebner must play like a 2600+ Grandmaster at his >>>>current age, since his rating is that good. >>>Maybe, but I'm sure he fatigues more often than a 2600+ 20 year old GM with an >>>equal rating. So he may have times when he performs below is rating. >>> >>>That's my point! >>>> >>>>If GM Huebner loses the match to Fritz, Fritz will have beaten a standing 2600+ >>>>Fide Grandmaster. >>> >>> Yes that's true. But does it make Deep Fritz on a dual P-III with a Gig. of >>>Ram, a Grandmaster? > >I don't believe so. >> >>Right, Grandmaster is only a title, but it is another nail in the coffen for >>those who think the best programs are not of "GM strength". > >I agree! However, there is still much data to obtain to say with certainty that >todays' programs are at the GM level. If you wish to be objective, scientific. > >Personally, I think that todays' programs run on very fast hardware are indeed, >weak GM's! However not _World Class_ GM's;) The data shows computers to be very strong Grandmasters in open tournament play, Junior 6 and ChessTiger both achieving 2700+ TPR under this type of conditions. The question now is can a computer perform this well against a 2600+ Elite Grandmaster who has prepared for the program. This is what the argument has now boiled down to. If the programs pass this last test, and the last straw for those who think computers have not reached a GM level of play. It will be hard to deny that in 2001 computers have surpassed this milestone of true GM performance. Not in 5 or 10 years, but today. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Forth, do you know more than Professor Hyatt? Are you a programmer? Better yet >>>>>are you a GM?? >>>>> >>>>>I don't know anything about you odell hall with the exception, you could show a >>>>>little more respect! >>>>> >>>>>As for the todays' game GM Huebner played Black and brought about a draw on move >>>>>23! >>>>> >>>>>So we'll see for fun how the rest of the very short match will go;) Myself, I >>>>>don't think tiny matches such as these have any great value in determining >>>>>whether a program has reached the GM level, only that these programs can give a >>>>>GM a good fight, and may win from time to time. >>>>> >>>>>Give both technology and programming another 5 years and I believe by then we'll >>>>>have _solid_ GM 2600+ chess playing monsters! >>>>> >>>>>Terry
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.