Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 05:13:21 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
> >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. > >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. No i'm not constructing a scenario where this "might" occur I am stating that (i would bet, of the course the calculation would have to be done and it would be extremely difficult to do) the hypothesis is that in that period of time that the ODDS are "high", that fritz would have the norm. > >Your making the assumption that since Fritz is better than 2300-2450, >it should always win against these players I would definitely not posit that it would always win, but i think it would have a high winning percentage, and i would think that the odds would predict that indeed it would have some strong performances in the alotted time(5 years). (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. Well if you posit that fritz is just say 2450, well a computer 2450 is really more consistent than a human 2450 wouldn't you think,( it never forgets it's opening, doesn't get sick,isn't late, not in time trouble)? This greater consistency is what makes up for a higher rating in my oppinion(i admit that some test on that idea might need to be done) > >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. As i said earlier in this post the ELO is what is important. If you got the GM norm this way Well you would be a GM that is of course only answering the question of the title but not the strength fo fritz. I know this may sound like i mencing words here, but it could be argued that If you are strong enough to get the title, then you are grandmaster strength as you are your strength and a GM. This would of course probably reflect that Fritz is a bottom of the barrel GM, but if you check the list you will fin a number of people who float aroun the 2480-2505 rating who achieved the title in just this way. I quote a GM from silmans book "How to improve your chess" If an IM plays in enough tournaments in europe he will get the title." The result is that by playing so much and maximizing their oppertunities the odds allowed them the norm, but against a solid GM they would probably score just as es fritz did against kotronias 1 of 4. > >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. This is a personal statement to you from me, and i state it only because you have raised the question. I believe Mr Hyatt is totally wrong, further that he believes himself to be wrong, and indeed he just wants to keep the thread going because he loves to have the last word regardless of if he is right or wrong, i believe that the record of his posts present and past bears this out. This is of course my oppinion, and not a statement of fact and is not intended as an attack on Mr Hyatt or as a statement about his true character. It is a statement of how he appears to me. > >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. As i said i see no difference in the ability to get the title and bieng a GM. This may be open to ones personal interpretation of what a GM is. The title just means you could do it, that's why it's lifetime, the number of GMs in the 2300ELOs points to this A. Bisguier, A Dake, they are GMs. The title only points to an accomplishment, not there strength. I believe Fritz to probably be on par with a 2450-2465 player at his best. As i said though i believe the consistency however makes the difference which pushes it's rating higher. 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. > I would think a weak GM is 2490-2500 for example Maurice ashley he floats around 2490-2505 (just lost to a 2200 flat at the world open), yet he has 2 GM norms.
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.