Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 13:36:30 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 15:28:58, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On May 01, 1999 at 12:56:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On May 01, 1999 at 12:12:18, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 1999 at 03:24:36, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On April 30, 1999 at 18:49:03, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 30, 1999 at 17:35:10, Phil Dixon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 30, 1999 at 17:14:36, odell hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 30, 1999 at 15:54:40, KarinsDad wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 30, 1999 at 15:31:47, odell hall wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi CCC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am sure we all Miss Dr. Hyatt (I know I do!). However I think that it is >>>>>>>>>very convient for Dr. Hyatt to disappear! now that computers are proving in >>>>>>>>>front of the world that they are Grandmasters!! (Beating a 2673 at game\60 over >>>>>>>>>several games is not an IM Performance!!) It seems now he doesn't have explain >>>>>>>>>how it is possible for a so-called "weak International Master" ( Hyatts >>>>>>>>>Acessment of Top Programs) to Defeat a Fide Elo 2677 in a match at faster than >>>>>>>>>action chess time controls. In my view If fritz is capable of Beating A super >>>>>>>>>grandmaster at game\60 which is a reasonably long game, then no doubt it is >>>>>>>>>grandmaster strength. Ofcourse there is more than this isolated match to come >>>>>>>>>to this conclusion, kasparov himself said in his recent speech in the united >>>>>>>>>states that micro programs are now over 2600! Ofcourse We have many >>>>>>>>>international masters and Grandmasters saying the same things, including Larry >>>>>>>>>Kaufman. It is now starting to look very silly for anyone to say otherwise, >>>>>>>>>those that maintain this viewpoint will no doubt lose credibility in the eyes of >>>>>>>>>the computer chess public. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Actually, I will be the first one to step up and look silly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From your post, you indicated one match and the opinions of several GMs for your >>>>>>>>conclusion. This response is based solely on the information in your post. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Although your conclusion is based on the opinions of several GMs, it is not >>>>>>>>based on enough evidence to be conclusive. It is still an opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Without further data, basing it on one match between a computer and a 2600+ GM >>>>>>>>is irresponsible. Anand just came in a three way tie for 8th place in a major >>>>>>>>tournament with 10 superGM level players. I would not make the conclusion that >>>>>>>>Anand is no longer the second or third best player in the world based on this >>>>>>>>one tournament. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You have no idea whether Judit was fatigued, ill, trying to prove that she could >>>>>>>>match tactics with the computer, OR the computer is GM strength at G30 and G60. >>>>>>>>Your "evidence" is faulty. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This also does not show whether a computer is GM strength at standard tournament >>>>>>>>times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So, all in all, although the evidence that programs are at or approaching GM >>>>>>>>strength is mounting, it is not conclusive evidence quite yet (or at least the >>>>>>>>evidence in your post is not sufficient). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>KarinsDad :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well Let me ask you two things? First What would you define as evidence? >>>>>>>Secondly How many grandmasters Must fritz beat before you would consider it to >>>>>>>be a grandmaster? The Problem is as long As computers are not allowed to >>>>>>>participate in Fide Events and Achieve legitamate norms There will never Be any >>>>>>>"evidence". But this doesn't stop me from using good common sense, If one >>>>>>>consistenly beats grandmasters then one is a grandmaster! Show me a >>>>>>>international master on the face of the planet that could beat Judit Polgar in a >>>>>>>match under any conditions or circumstances? If you take the performance of top >>>>>>>programs as a whole they have more than proven themselves to be grandmaster >>>>>>>strength. You speak as if there is no evidence , when there is overwelming >>>>>>>evidence. Humans in order to get the GM title need only 3 Grandmaster norms!!! >>>>>>> This means basically that they only have to achieve a grandmaster performance >>>>>>>in three tournaments, to get the title. ONLY three tournaments!! I don't think >>>>>>>even the most skeptical person if they are honest with themselves would deny >>>>>>>fritz5 could easily achieve a grandmaster Norm if allowed to compete. Ok let me >>>>>>>list some Evidence 1. Hiarcs Defeat of 2485 elo rated Deen Hergott in a six >>>>>>>game match 2. Rebel winning of both Samuel Cups I and II in 1997 -1998 over >>>>>>>Several International masters with over a 2600 Performance rating!! 3.Numerous >>>>>>>indivisual encounters between computers and grandmasters at 40/2 where the >>>>>>>computer was the victor 4. Rebel Annand match 5. Matches Played at 40/2 between >>>>>>>Crafty and Grandmaster Larry Christian Crafty won. 5. Fritz5 Defeats 2577 elo >>>>>>>Judith polgar (game\60, Game\30. The Strongest Player in the History of the >>>>>>>Game says they are 2600! This all means nothing??? >>>>>>>Oh I forgot to mention the outstanding Perforances of computers at the Aegon >>>>>>>tournament With Mchess and Rebel with performances ratings over 2600el0. >>>>>>>No doubt I am leaving alot out!! When you have all these results and people are >>>>>>>still having doubts, this makes me wonder what people are looking for. yet a >>>>>>>human only has to score three norms to be considered a GM. No doubt had all the >>>>>>>above events been Qualified by Fide as Norms, Computers would have earned the >>>>>>>title long ago. Could you show me a human international master that could >>>>>>>achieve any of the above? I ask you again, if this is not suffient evidence >>>>>>>than what would be? Does programs have to Grow wings and then Fly to Heaven and >>>>>>>Beat God? Perhaps then you would still say there is no evidence! >>>>>> >>>>>>I think computers are VERY strong, but I have to agree with the other gentlemen >>>>>>that there is a need for more evidence and especially to get ALL the facts >>>>>>regarding the match in question. >>>>>> >>>>>>Phil :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>More evidence, more evidence, more evidence. The actual point of fact is, that >>>>>Human so called critic experts, will never in this world recognize the best >>>>>programs for there achievements, until they are allowed to play in sanctioned >>>>>Sgm tournaments and beat the hell out of them, which they bloody well mayme be >>>>>capable of right now. >>>>> >>>>>There are always to many execuses, "too much noise in the hall", so this result >>>>>does not is discounted . Etc etc etc. Humans are imbred with huge ego's and will >>>>>not/cannot face reality when it is staring them right in the face. >>>>> >>>>>The most compelling reason for acceptance is that the strongest player in this >>>>>planent has degreed "the micro's play at 2600+ strength" If he can see it, then >>>>>the rest of you so called negative thinking morons can take your ego's and pound >>>>>sand, The rest of us don"t need to hear from you about it anymore. ! >>>> >>>>This is the same person who accuses IBM of fraud. Just because he is a world >>>>champion doesn't mean that all of his opinions are correct. (Fischer, anyone?) >>>> >>>>Whether computers are GM strength or not is completely testable, there is no >>>>reason it can't be tested for if sufficient resources (time, money) is put into >>>>doing so. Undoubtedly, they will shortly become GM strength if they haven't >>>>already reached it. Decreeing that they have done so will not change the real >>>>uncertainty of the proposition, however. >>>> >>>>"Negative thinking morons"? "Take your ego's and pound sand"? You might >>>>consider getting less worked up about the topic in the future. "The rest of us >>>>don't need to hear from you about it anymore!" is rather over the top. This is >>>>a discussion forum: if you don't want to be exposed to other people's points of >>>>view, you could choose not to read the bulletin board. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>No I will continue to read the bulletin board, and make my comments as i see >>>fit, I have never said anything before negative here, Never. I have a right to >>>say what I feel, and what I feel is, what I have already said ! >>> >>>As far as the best chess player in the world expressing his view point of the >>>big match, he has that right. Does that mean he is less of a champion ? No, of >>>course not. Does that degrade his understanding of chess ? No of course not. >>>Does that invalidate his input on the micro's ? No of course not. Fischer ?, he >>>is the biggest cry baby of all time in the chess Kingdom, I dont wanna hear >>>about him either ! >> >>It is not the case that people have the "right" to say what they feel here. >>Almost everyone here says what they feel, but a few have been banned for it. >>This wouldn't be true if your claim to "a right" was correct. >> >>Your second paragraph does nothing to support the original assertion, namely, >>that computers play at GM strength. >> >>Dave > >Ohhhhhhhh, ok, I guess I have been threatened. I leave that as it stands and you >have the last word mate. No threat was intended. Indeed, I attempted to choose my words carefully enough that a threat would not be perceived, however it appears I was unsuccessful in this. Dave
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.