Author: Chuck
Date: 18:41:34 05/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1999 at 20:58:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I agree. And to reference some earlier remarks that GM Rhode chose slower ways to win, I think he was playing as a GM would - he had a very promising position and he was not going to risk giving anything back. After gaining a significant edge, I believed he took the "safe but sure" route to victory. It's kind of surprising to me, because I never expected that Deep Blue was that much stronger than the top micros, but this contrasted against the Kasparov-Deep Blue match might suggest the difference is really greater than 100 rating points. Chuck
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.