Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:58:54 05/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1999 at 19:51:15, Mark Young wrote: >On May 22, 1999 at 19:07:15, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>seeing the way GM rohde crushed rebel 10 I see very little chances for H7.It >>will be running on a much slower machine, > >This is incorrect, a G233 is not a much slower machine then a PII 450. The G233 >is equal to about a PII 350 running Hiarcs7. > >it is not as strong (against humans) >>any way as rebel 10, > >This is a unknown, Hiarcs7 may be better... > >(supposed to be a relatively weak defender) > >This is inaccurate, Hiarcs7 in my test has shown itself to be a very strong and >cunning defender playing humans and other programs. > > The Yerminator >>would have had enough time to seek out the holes in H7 's defences > >This is very true, but this is what makes this match the most interesting over >the other matches played. > > and besides >>the Yerminator is a higher rated player than GM Rohde. > >True, and both have shown the know how to play against programs, but GM Rohde >has been more impressive in this regard. IMO > > H7 wil I predict bite >>the dust. > >Define bite the dust, 0-6 ???. I predict a 2.5 to 3.5 result in GM Yermo's >favor, but this would still be a GM result for Hiarcs7 and far from bitting the >dust. > >I think Bob is right, micros have a long way to go yet against top >>class humans. > >I think this has already been shown to be incorrect, micro have already shown >they can hold their own playing the best players even at long time controls. >Better no, but little doubt that they are in a GM class. IMO >> >>rajen gupta A couple of points. 1. The Yermo/Hiarcs match will _not_ suggest Hiarcs is a GM, _unless_ Hiarcs wins. Once Yermo gets to 3.5 (ie suppose he wins the first 3 and then draws number 4) then he can resign the rest, save his 'brainpower' and still walk out a winner. This is the reason a _match_ can not be used to reach a GM Norm. And is the reason that the USCF never allowed "matches" to be rated when a computer was involved. 2. I've still seen no serious evidence that suggests that PCs are GM-level at 40/2. At 5 0 there is no question. At 30 0 there is no question. But at longer time controls, nothing I have seen would suggest this. At least two GMs today made this comment... that at 40/2 the tactical wizardry of the computer becomes generally ineffective and then the huge evaluation holes are simply overwhelming. Both GMs recognize that at 40/2 a computer is going to win a game here and there on tactics. But it is going to lose more based on understanding (or misunderstanding.) In chatting briefly with Michael after the match today, he made it clear that he thought the game was over almost by move 20 or so. Even if he didn't see the tactical shots that the computers saw for him... One quote by a GM today: "What human IM or GM would _ever_ cede the two open files as Rebel did? The game was lost at that point, how Rohde was going to win was the only question, as white had nothing left to say about the course of the game after allowing that to happen." That is a pretty big positional misunderstanding. And remember that Rohde found some nice tactics with almost no time left. IE he played the last 12 moves or so in under 5 minutes total... to reach move 40 and the time control.
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.