Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:55:30 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 10:14:18, Shaun Graham wrote: >On July 13, 1998 at 09:42:48, Robert Hyatt wro >> >>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. > > >No Hyatt your logic is flawed. First of all i didn't say anything about as you >put it "MANY GM's", The truth is however that there are some and i would gather >a good number. Another thing when people use that statistic about how many >times you should statistically beat someone, it really isn't considering that if > I am playing a certain number of games against a single person, or wether i'm >playing against several people of that rating and what the effect is. I myself >have just recently played a match with an INDIVIDUAL 200 points below me , i >beat him perfectly, , besides that, i have beat him 14 times straight! I would >bet that's a bit beyond statistical error. your point would be? if you beat him less then 3 of every 4, I'd be concerned that his rating was too low or yours was too high. As it is, either yours is too low, or his is too high, because if he is winning none, he is way over 400 Elo points worse than you... > >Further i never said that computers weren't getting busted badly, because they >are, but you simply overlook anti computer strategy. As i said if i played in a >Swiss system tourney recieving moves from fritz, without people adopting their >anti Computer strategy, they would play normally, allow the positions to get >open,play for tactics, and then bye-bye i'd have the norm. Further i wasn't >talking about computers in general, i was talking about Fritz. I already know >or i shall say that i've heard, that you don't like the way fritz plays. >However to pull your own tactic, according to the STATISTICS of both selctive >search, and SSDF fritz is the strongest program. Further people who understand >chess much better than you, me and most people GM Yermolinsky, and i also >believe Anand believe Fritz to be the strongest commercially available program. > it probably is the strongest available. But it is also the worst at defending against "anti-computer" strategy. And whether it would do better "incognito" isn't an issue, because it can't play like that. And if it can't, it is going to get eaten alive by GM's... >Of course neither you and i can prove wether fritz is a GM strength or not, >without actually testing fritz in actual tournament play(I believe that this >would also have to be done just as i said in a secret way with an individual >recieving moves from fritz, to avoid bias, so that players would play the way >they do normally). It is none the less, my belief that indeed Fritz(current >version) could perform well enough, to eventually recieve 3 GM norms in 5 >Years(the time in which one must obtain all 3 norms)playing on the europeon >swiss circuit of chess. That's an invalid way of testing. Everything has to be out in the open, the human GM has to know he's playing a computer (although if you make the match last 24 games, Fritz would get destroyed no matter what because the GM would "figure out it's a computer" after just a very few games, and then it would be over...
This page took 0.01 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.