Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:14:20 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1998 at 21:09:53, Don Dailey wrote: >Hi Bob, > > >>>We keep beating around the bush. We both seem happy to give very >>>strong opinions on where they are at without actually giving an >>>estimated ELO rating of the TOP micro. So I'll start with a lower >>>bound and you give me an upper bound. From there we will see how >>>far off we are from each other and whether it's enough to argue >>>about. I will continue to argue as long as it remains civil and >>>you are willing (and if you really disagree by as much as it sounds >>>like you do.) >>> >>>In my humble opinion, the strongest micro is within 100 rating >>>points of the weak grandmaster level so I'll say that it's no >>>weaker than 2400 ELO rating points. >> >>That makes it easy, because that is my upper bound. So we have no >>further negotiation here. :) > >I suspected as much. Your exagerations make me believe we have >yet to make 2000 ELO. When I say Grandmaster you think of Kasparov >and I think of much lesser players. > I'm not sure what you mean. Last time I looked, a GM had to (1) be rated at 2500+, and (2) earn 3 norms. This is quite in line with my stance all along, that programs on micros are *not* at 2500 yet. I've been watching one particular IM on ICC play program after program at game/30, game/30 with 30 sec increment, and game/60, and shred program after program, mine included. No GM would do that with an IM. *none*. And these programs include Hiarcs, Rebel, Fritz, Crafty, and every other one I've had time to watch, all on fast hardware. So there is *no* exaggeration on my side. On those that claim 2500+ for certain, but not moi... > > >>>What I'm saying is that computers can still overtake us without >>>being better in every single way. This is already the case with >>>me personally. I am not very strong as a chess player and have >>>never been over 2000 USCF, but I can still see my program make >>>errors that I would not make. It's getting much rarer now but >>>it still happens. And yet I am forced to concede that my >>>program is much better than I am. >>> >> >>And I have the same problem. But I don't get beaten because I get killed >>positionally, I get beat due to tactical mistakes. That's not nearly so >>common at the GM-level, although they do make them. But, when they play >>computers, they are also good enough to create positions where they are not >>likely to make tactical mistakes, because the computer's position doesn't offer >>any tactical chances (Anand vs Fritz, game 1, reference, where fritz had >>absolutely no chance whatsoever.) >> >>If Anand mixes it up with Fritz, he's going to lose some. But if he chooses >>to play into positions where tactics don't mean much, he's not going to have >>to think much at all. >> >>That's the point here. If I was good enough to steer games away from the wild >>tactical slugfests, I'd be willing to play any micro for money, and go home >>rich. Because I know more than any I have seen. But if it turns wild, then >>they have a huge advantage. But at the GM level, the GM's are quite good enough >>to simply not allow the micro advantage to become an issue. And if you take out >>tactics, you take out 90% of what a program is good at. Leaving very little >>hope against a good GM (or even good IM) player. > >Have you read my latest post on the subject? I make the point that >HAVING to steer away from these computer friendly positions is a >serious handicap in itself. Did you see my analogy with Kasparov >vs Deep Blue? You don't get something for nothing. Kasparov >had to give up something to get his positional games. It's my opinion >that he gave up too much because it's not the kind of chess he is >best known for. no.. you miss the point. There is *nothing* that says that a GM can't "play his own game." Nothing at all. Forget Kasparov. He followed bad advice, practiced against Fritz thinking it was preparing him for Deep Blue, and he got just what he deserved. But did you watch Anand vs Fritz? Anand didn't "play weird chess".. he just didn't let Fritz have a chance tactically. That's quite different from what you are thinking, I'm afraid. You seem to be assuming that avoiding an open position means giving up too much. I'm saying that a GM can *do both*. Avoid tactics *and* play his own game. Anand proved it against Fritz. Let's watch against Rebel then continue this... > > >- 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.