Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:18:49 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 1998 at 08:28:08, Shaun Graham wrote: >On July 25, 1998 at 19:55:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 25, 1998 at 11:04:40, Shaun Graham wrote: >> >>>"At 40/2 they are not GM yet, but they are pretty close, and if the human GM >>>doesn't take care, he can get rolled up pretty badly, since the computer is >>>going to be quite attentive toward the least tactical mistake, where another >>>human might miss it entirely. The better they (the programs) get, the harder >>>it will be to attract human GM players to play them." >>> >>>(A quote from Robert Hyatt) >>> >>> He says "pretty close" now, that's not what my memory recalls him saying. >> >>Depends on your definition of "pretty close". I have said "FIDE 2400" for quite >>a while now. Which is still a ways from the minimum 2500 needed for a GM title. > > " In the 2 slow games Anand didn t show any overwhelming >superiority, as he would have against a 2400 player. I have no doubt about Anand >being stronger than Rebel 10, but not by 400 Elo points. During 1997 and 1998, >Anand drew 48 games playing white. The lowest ranked opponent in these games was >Ljubojevic with 2565. Then Piket with 2575 and Hübner with 2580. All others were >rated 2630 or higher. Of course, all well known GMs. I don t say this as proof >of Rebel 10 being a GM, but overall as strong indications that its real strength >is well above 2500." (Enrique Irazoqui) > for a rating, I discount "first games". I've taken too many "first versions" into competition and saw them do very well, only to see the humans "catch on" after a few games and turn things around. IE you can take Crafty, put it on a server, and change anything of your choice and its rating will almost instantly go up. But it will likely drop later. I once screwed up king safety, and when I logged on, ICC was abuzz with "wow, watch this thing, it has busted 3 GM's in 4 game matches, and it is attacking like mad." It was. But it wasn't long before it became apparent that its attacks were generally unsound, and the GM's picked this up (after you get a g4/h4 shoved in your face by a program that is a deadly calculator, you can get intimidated) they began to smash it, until I found and fixed the bug. Ditto for opening book selection. Everyone has found that a new book produces a jump in rating until players "figure it out." With that said, I personally will wait until Rebel 10 is released, and it has the opportunity to play several GM players on the chess servers. Rebel 8 had serious king-safety problems against IM/GM players. I haven't seen any Rebel 9 users playing on ICC so I have no opinion there as of yet. But if there is a hole in Rebel 10, it will become apparent after a few games against several GM players. Then we can figure out if it is a 2300, 2400, or 2500 player. Note that Crafty has absolutely crushed GM players even in game/30, yet *I* don't believe it is a 2500 player, unless you restrict it to game/30 and faster. But at 40/2hr, things are different... > >> >> >> >>>Regardless of that however, what does it mean? "Pretty close" to a Shirov? >>>Certainly not. "Pretty close" to a Kaidanov or Gulko? Hmm almost certainly >>>not. "Pretty close" to a Kempinsky, Groszpeter, or Morovic(GMs you have >>>probably never heard of)? Well the truth is that these latter GM's would have >>>(probably) been toasted by Rebel 10 if they had played it 2 40/2 games. >>>Regardless of what statistics say how often would you think Anand fails to beat >>>2500 rated GMs? And i do mean beat them handily, not a situation where everyone >>>is wondering who is winning as occurred during the Anand Rebel 40/2 games. Now >>>of course the draw that Rebel got could have been luck, it could have even been >>>the 1 out of however many games a "maybe weak IM"(Robert Hyatt, 1998) might have >>>been statistically expected to draw in a match with a GM of Anand's caliber(more >>>games are certainly needed to be definitive). Anands caliber bieng World >>>Champion caliber. To illustrate what i mean by this(World Champion Caliber) i >>>will quote Kasparov reffering to another GM. >>> >>>"I had a big discussion with my seconds over lunch about whether to play my new >>>plan against Shaked. I would have preferred to see another player's face across >>>the board after 13...Rd8--not necessarily Karpov, >>>but ANY STRONG PLAYER. IT WAS lIKE USING AN ATOM BOMB TO SHOOT BIRDS."(Inside >>>chess magazine) >>> >>> The so called bird, that Kasparov is reffering to is none other than the >>>current WORLD junior champion GM Tal Shaked. Perhaps Kasparov is using a bit >>>of bravado(??). Hmm nope Shaked stood no chance whatsoever. Yet we have just >>>been witness to a match where a program (Rebel 10), first drew a game, and then >>>put up an amazingly staunch resistance, so staunch in fact that Anand famous for >>>his speed used as much time as his computer opponent. When we see such a >>>performance against a player of "WORLD CHAMPION CALIBER" by said program we can >>>definitely feel safe in positing the likelyhood that programs such as >>>rebel10/Fritz5 are indeed GM strength. Especially when we can feel certain that >>>if we took the weakest GM and paired him against the mighty Anand the outcome of >>>the match would have indeed in all likelyhood been far far more clear. >> >> >>You can stick with your opinion, of course. And I will stick with mine. I >>simply see too many holes at present, in the micros. They have their moments, >>and Rebel certainly played well. > >It is best not to (simply) attempt to stick with ones oppinions but rather to >follow the very important concept called "the weight of the evidence". Based >on two games against Anand the weight of the evidence is not overwhelmingly >heavy in either direction. However, from these games one would be hard pressed >to form a hypothesis that "the likelyhood is Rebel10 is not GM strength". >Indeed the evidence would lend to one forming the exact opposite hypothesis. > As I said, I have done this. Rebel 10 doesn't offer us enough evidence yet. Rebel 8 was nowhere near a GM level. I've seen nothing that says Rebel 9 is a quantum leap. Ditto for Rebel 10. Steady improvement? Probably. But until I see it play 25-30 games against 2500 players, and roughly "break even" with them (or better) I'll withhold judgement. The only two games I have so far are a loss and a draw against Anand. That's not enough information for me. Yet... > > But I'd still bet on Anand, after giving him >>a few games to see how it plays.... > >As i look in this post i see no hint or even dream of a suggestion that Anand is >not clearly superior to Rebel10. In fact if it isn't as strong as a kaidanov or >Gulko as mentioned previous i think Anand bieng stronger can be taken for >granted. > > >> >>Unless you talk about fast games. I just did some history tests on ICC and >>found that, for example, that Crafty is winning 3 of every 4 games from GM >>Dlugy... that means Dlugy+200 for a rating estimate. But that is blitz. I >>have similar results against Yasser, Roman, etc... > >I see no mention of anything other than 40/2 games in this post. Also in other >post in this thread even more 40/2 game performances are attested to by other >CCC members If you only look at 40/2, what conclusion do you draw from one loss and one draw? Performance rating? roughly 2600 after two games. But with just two games I don't feel comfortable speculating about a program's rating. It will be possible after it plays some where we can see more games... That's one reason the Fredkin prize required 25 games for the >2500 rating. A couple of games could produce any rating. And if you play 10 computers against Anand, the odds are one would win both games on occasion. and have a 3200 rating for two games... >> >>But 40/2 is something else... and I watched an IM (A pretty good one) rip >>Rebel 9 badly in two games today. I don't know what kind of hardware, however, >>as the rebel user was logged on as a guest. But this particular IM is quite >>good against computers... I have been playing another IM some long games on >>ICC and am breaking even pretty much, although I (Crafty) can totally shred him >>at 5 3 and so forth... > >Why are you talking about how they are doing at faster controls there is even >more evidence that they are GM's at this speed, Anand was trashed in the fast >games, and the above game you mentioned by the IM in all likelyhood was but >another one of these quick games. As for crafty playing an IM at long games, >Crafty i'm sure is a competent opponent (the latest crafty anyway (it's stronger >IMHO). I saw crafty 14.? lose a match 6 0 at 40/2 against chessmaster). >However Crafty isn't in the same league as Rebel10 or Ftitz5. Here's my point: Computers are clearly stronger as the time control gets shorter. If a computer has trouble with an IM at roughly game/30, then it is *certainly* going to have trouble with that same IM at game/2hr. And given my current hardware advantage, since I do a parallel search and Rebel/Fritz don't, I'd take your match request whenever you want to try it. I can quite easily get 2-3M nodes per second on available hardware. That's a big advantage. You don't think speed is important, based on Comments by Ed in years past? Ponder this then: "why do you suppose he went to Kryotech to get a souped-up AMD machine?" Maybe speed *does* matter after all? BTW, I've never seen crafty lose a match 6 0 to Chessmaster, although with 6 games it is possible. I've also seen it win such matches regularly. CM5000 is a good program, as good as rebel and the others, contrary to popular opinion. Check out the current Korrespondence Kup. And look to see who's winning and who is beating who... I wouldn't discount *any* program so quickly...
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.