Author: blass uri
Date: 22:39:52 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 1998 at 00:14:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. This proves that this IM knows to play against computer programs This is not a proof that programs on micros are not at 2500 yet. I believe the rating of programs goes down because humans learn to play against computers. today programs at 2500 will be on the same hardware tomorrow 2400. Uri > >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.