Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:33:54 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 23:14:13, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 14, 1998 at 19:46:35, Shaun Graham wrote: > >>On July 14, 1998 at 10:43:27, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On July 13, 1998 at 11:57:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 13, 1998 at 10:30:31, Shaun Graham wrote: >>>> >>>>>PS #2! :) >>>>> >>>>>You don't have to defeat GM's to qaulify for the title, you simply have to >>>>>perform at a certain level in events of a certain category. In swiss system >>>>>tournaments fritz could get paired against almost all 2300-2400 opponents, >>>>>defeat them and have a performance well over 2500 ELO. This isn't even taking >>>>>into consideration, the 1 out of 4 tourneys where fritz would defeat someone of >>>>>the calliber of GM Kotronias. >>>> >>>> >>>>Sorry, but this is mistaken. You have to play in a tournament of a known >>>>"category" and produce a result >= X where X varies based on the category >>>>of the tournament. And it *guarantees* that you are going to have to play >>>>and beat GM's to get the required 3 GM norms... Or you are going to have to >>>>roll over a *bunch* of IM players which is just as good. >>> >>>Hi Shaun, >>> >>>I think Bob is more correct on this one. The problem is that if you >>>continue to beat up on weaker players, then you are virtually guaranteed >>>some pairings with stronger players. I don't think these tournaments >>>have very many weaker players anyway. But if you can "roll over" these >>>weaker players consistantly, then you probably are playing at grandmaster >>>strength. I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely, perhaps impossible to get >>>a GM norm without hanging with the Grandmasters. >> >>Sorry i never said that you wouldn't play any titled players. What i said is >>that you could play a number of 2300-2450 players and beat them, this would give >>you the necessary performance rating, you might play a GM, doesn't mean you are >>going to lose, after all fritz did beat GM Kotronias a game in this match, if >>you extrapolated a bit on that data, you could posit that fritz would beat a GM >>1 in every 4 tournaments, thus giving rather good possibilities of getting a >>norm. Further you have 5 years to acquire the norm, in that time period (less >>most likely) you would have achieved those norms. >>> >>>- Don > >Although I agree with you on the strength of Fritz, or more accurately >that I disagree with Bob that it is nowhere close to GM strength, I >think you're falling into the human perception trap. The way this works >is that people often tend to make "binary" judgements. I think Bob >does this a lot, it always seems to be all or nothing to him. Fritz is >either GM strength or not even close. I don't know if he believes >everything he says, or just feels compelled to exaggerate to make his >points. > I'm not exaggerating at all. Any player that loses consistently to the Stonewall is *not* going to make it as a GM. Probably not even as an IM in fact. And Fritz can't play the stonewall as black and survive. I watched it get rolled twice last night on ICC by a uscf 2200-level player (no title of any kind). He just did a nice job of d4 e3 f4 c3, then rf3-h3, and so forth and black was lost before it knew it was even in trouble. That's only one example. Against Anand we all saw it get totally destroyed in game one, and probably lost in game 2 but a draw was enough to win the match and Anand took the easy way out. yes anand is not just another GM. But He definitely played "anti-computer" in game 1, and blew fritz out without it ever having even a semblance of counter-play or opportunity to do anything other than to sit back and watch itself get strangled. Until it can play blocked positions, and not rely totally on opening things up and relying on tactical oversights by the opponent, it is not going to be a GM. I'm not sure it can even beat some IM players I know regularly (IE I believe it would lose more than it would win against several IM players on ICC). So if you think it is a GM, or that it is "close" we simply disagree. Nothing wrong with that, but my "disagreement" is based on watching *hundreds* of games on the servers. That's pretty good evidence. Fritz is good. But upper IM and most GM players are way better in the cases I have explained. I don't know of an IM that would play a kings gambit against it. I know many that will play the Stonewall or Torre attack or even the Evans as white gets a lot for a little. >But I think you're doing this too. You are, by construction, evisioning >a scenario where Fritz is rolling over a bunch of 2300-2450 players. >And you're saying that this might be enough to get it a GM norm. > >Your making the assumption that since Fritz is better than 2300-2450, >it should always win against these players (you didn't say this, >but your example definitely implied it since you cite it as an example >of how Fritz should be able to get a GM norm.) But I'm saying that if >you can consistantly beat 2300-2450 ELO players, then you MUST be a >pretty strong player, a GRANDMASTER! You might as well be playing >the Grandmasters to get your rating. > >In your example you're also saying Fritz would only have to win about >1 out of 4 against Grandmasters. So you are proposing a situation >where Fritz is not really Grandmaster strength, but still gets a >Grandmaster NORM by doing a lot better than it should against the >"weaker" players. > >None of this really makes sense. If you want to make the argument >that Fritz is close to GM strength (which I believe) then just >make the argument. I believe Bob is way off on the low side but >I'm not sure what you believe. It sounds to me like you believe >Bob is right but want to keep the argument going by trying to >constuct strange scenerios where Fritz qualifies by fluke. > >But this is actually what I believe, that Fritz would have to >qualify by fluke. It is probably not quite of GM strength but >could manage to become a GM IF it were allowed to participate in >enough tournaments and got lucky. With another 50-100 rating >points I think it would deserve the low end of the title. Bob >seems to believe it is several hundred rating points away from >weak grandmaster. > >What is the rating you would feel comfortable with as an example >of a "weak" grandmaster? I will propose 2550 as the magic >ELO number. Does anyone have any suggestions on this? I would >rather have an ELO number in mind if we are going to talk about >Micro's being of grandmaster strength. > >- Don
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.