Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:42:48 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 05:28:26, Shaun Graham wrote: >Concerning the Kotronias Fritz match: > > Well a single match doesn't prove or support anything. If kasparov or Anand >played most any GM alive, a 3 game match the score would be 3-1 or even 3 0!! >Fischer beat larsen 6 0 does that mean Larsen is not grandmaster strength? >Further Grandmasters have an unfair advantage against computers in that in >professional chess, GMs prepare for each other. Kotronias can prepare for >fritz, but Fritz can't prepare for kotronias(except IF a special opening book >has been prepared but still not the same) Further Kotronias WOULD BE EXPECTED >TO BEAT some people with the GM title 3 0! At least Fritz had a point. Seeing >that he had a point, and you attempt tosuggest that a 3 game match is >evidence,would you claim that Fritz is I.M strength since it BEAT a grandmaster >after all. If you accept that Fritz is I.M strength, then you should know that >there are I.M.'s that are stronger than many grandmasters case in point "Igor >Ivanov, Sokolin, Michael Brooks". Many I.M.s get the grandmaster title simply >by playing in lots of tournaments in europe, if you are an I.M, and you play >enough especially in lower category tourneys you will get the 3 GM norms. In >the New york open there were several GMs in the under 2400 section, and even a >couple rated under 2300!! So is Fritz a GM? last time I looked, a GM *had* to have a rating over 2500. And we are talking about "IGM" vs "GM" here I assume, since GM is a USCF term, while IGM is a title awarded by FIDE after achieving 3 GM norms in three separate tournaments, plus maintaining a 2500 rating. > Also GM's often beat computers by playing anti computer chess instead of >regular >chess, so if i showed up and was bieng secretly told moves by fritz, and no one >knew to play ANTI COMPUTER chess against me i'd kill and have my norm! So yes >Fritz is a grandmaster at regular chess(at least on a P400)but because it has >weaknesses that it's opponent can know and play against, and fritz can not alter >itself that results in losses. Fritz is a GM if it were in a human body! Your logic is flawed. You won't find many GM's that will lose to other GM's at the rate of 3 losses for every win, because Elo says that means that the 3 game loser is rated *200* points below the winner. But believe what you want, of course, but computers are still getting busted badly at long time controls. And getting busted badly does not equate to GM. The GM above beating fritz was *not* an Anand or Kasparov.
This page took 0.03 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.