Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:16:45 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 02:47:18, Shaun Graham wrote: > >>> >>> >>>It doesn't matter if people find out, and start beating fritz! The point would >>>have been made, that when playing against the normal standard of grandmaster >>>chess Fritz is comparable with those players. That is the ultimate point and >>>purpose. We have computer chess so that we can see a high level of chess, and >>>also so that we can learn how to play typical chess(good chess), not anti >>>computer chess(bad chess). Now of course i'm not advocating that anyone should >>>purpotrate a hoax. What i'm suggesting is the likelyhood that Fritz is GM >>>strength when it comes to what's important "typical chess". When i described >>>the method of secrecy to test it, i was not advocating anyone do it, i was just >>>stating what would have to be done. There is often a difference between what >>>you have to do to qaulify for what you call ethics, and what you have to do to >>>get an accurate scientific result. >> >>All you are showing is that I have a lot better idea what a GM chess player is >>about than you do. Fritz is *not* one. It has positional weaknesses that even >>2200 players can beat. Talk to Tim on ICC. I've watched him bust it many >>times. > >Hmm Wow it's amazing! Anand, Kasparov, Yermolinsky, Henley, all of who think >fritz is very strong. And you Bob Hyatt are claiming fritz isn't even hardly a >master. If you'd read rather than write so much, you'd see I did not claim that "fritz isn't even hardly a master." But I do claim that a few masters and lots of IM's I know roll it up into a ball when they play it. It is most definitely strong. It most definitely is not a GM. It is most definitely not even a top IM. And I throw all the other micro programs into that same basket at present. A GM saying "Fritz is very strong" is *not* the same as saying "Fritz is a GM". When masters and weak IM's can't beat it with anti-computer strategies, it might become a GM. But not until. And that certainly hasn't occurred yet, based on watching it on the chess servers and in public matches... > I don't mean to insult you Hyatt but quite frequently you flood threads >for the sole purpose of arguing. Beyond that you purposely make attempts to >inflame when you realize you can't win with such statements as "All you are >showing is that I have a lot better idea what a GM chess player is about than >you do." You need to learn that this isn't personal, and stop trying to make it >so. Further note that anyone who cares to look Mr. Hyatt has responded to an >overwhelmingly large number of these post,i'm amazed that he has a job and time >to write so much". You have an unquenchable thirst to have the last word on any >post given in the groups, if it weren't for crafty you would have long lost any >respectability, if you haven't already. I think you can do good things for >computer chess, but stick to the data, and technique, if you aren't sure about >something look it up there's no shame in that. No offense but please stop with >your endless petty bickering it's really childish. >> Sorry you think I waste my time, as I agree at times. But I have been "off" this week from the office, and have dropped in here more frequently as a result. As far as "if you aren't sure, look it up" that's good advice that you should follow. Drop in to ICC, find one of the fritz computers, and look at its history there. That will be quite revealing. You'll find that most fritz operators would rather play other computers because they do very well against computers. But fritz relies on tactics and trying to open the position up, and simply gets killed in endgames and in closed positions. >>*no* GM gets beat by a 2200 player, ever. Unless it is a simul, or the rare >>blitz game. >>
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.