Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: To Bob Hyatt on GM vs computer Games

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 05:48:42 08/09/98

Go up one level in this thread


On August 09, 1998 at 07:22:45, Amir Ban wrote:

>On August 09, 1998 at 06:59:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 09, 1998 at 04:49:35, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>On August 08, 1998 at 19:16:57, Mark Young wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Crafty Scored 7wins 2losses and 1 draw in the last 10 games played by IM
>>>>Commons.(i guess the last 10) This is a player who knows how to beat chess
>>>>computers, and I'm sure knows crafty as well as any player. And the games were
>>>>play at fairly slow time control for ICC. I find it hard to understand why you
>>>>think crafty is no better then 2400 at 40/2. I just can't see IM Commons playing
>>>>that much better at 40/2 and crafty just falling apart. I think crafty would
>>>>still win play IM Commons at 40/2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>There's a huge difference between fast blitz and longer time controls. In blitz,
>>>those humans who are not super-human calculators (some of them are), simply
>>>don't have time to work things out, and it becomes a question if they are able
>>>to get through the game without making an elementary tactical blunder.
>>>
>>>This is not what happens in long time-controls. I played quite a few tournament
>>>games against masters (or above), and I remember only one game where the master
>>>lost because of a simple tactical error (IM Alik Gershon). Masters are not
>>>tactical weaklings, and they usually manage ok, even in complex situations.
>>>
>>>If you look through the games, you'll see what I mean. Game 2 is just a
>>>mouse-slip (this only happens on ICC), in a won position. Game 4 is an
>>>elementary blunder, and so on. Once you get to around 15 min/game, such idiocies
>>>disappear, and it becomes more like chess.
>>>
>>>Amir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Note that all of these games were played at 20 10 (20 minutes on the clock,
>>10 seconds added after each move.)  But to call them "serious" is certainly
>>a misnomer...
>
>Didn't notice this before, but now that you mention this I looked again:
>
>According to the pgn the first five were 5+3, and the others 15+15, 15+3, 15+15,
>20+5, 20+10.
>
>In the short 5 the score was 5-0 to crafty. In the longer 5 the score was
>2.5-2.5.
>
>Seems like a definite trend.
>
>Amir


I didn't notice the times in the pgn either...  the last 30 games or so
between Kim and Crafty are all 20 10...  with the results I had previously
summarized...  I just wrote a short shell script to extract the first N
games from the last 2 months history...  I'll grab some more this afternoon
and only include 20 10...

Bob



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.