Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:57:11 09/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 1999 at 12:19:14, Mark Young wrote: >On September 19, 1999 at 09:37:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On September 18, 1999 at 17:44:11, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >> >>>By the way, the Rebel Century Performance Rating for the match today was: >>> >> 2553 << >>>which is certainly in the range of Grandmaster ratings. >> >>Rebel's TPR so far is roughly 2480, which is not GM level. Ten games are not >>enough to know much, but taking into consideration that Rebel is the program >>that scored the best in Aegon over the years, this tpr seems to indicate that >>programs do not reach GM level yet at slow time controls and against motivated >>GMs. One more thing: considering that Rebel played these games with a hardware >>much faster than a P200MMX, it seems clear that the SSDF list is quite inflated, >>maybe by some 150 points. >> >>I think that someone has been saying all this for years. Hi Bob! :) > >Yes, Bob has stood his ground in regards to saying that today?s programs are not >yet at grandmaster strength. Bob has given his reason why, and defended them >well. Bob has given a rating for the top programs of 2400 to 2450. In light of >the Rebel data this may also be too high for anything using a PII 400 or slower. > >I will be the first one to say Bob was right, and I was wrong, as I too thought >that today?s programs have broken the 2500 barrier. I am one how does not >disregard data, because it conflicts with my personal opinion. don't dump your old opinion just yet. I have been saying 2450. Enrique just said that after 10 games, 2480 is the tpr. And a GM rating is 2500. This is still _very_ close.. and more games will help. In yesterday's game I thought the GM was going to win, as he had a very good position. The IM games were all interesting... Only strange thing I saw was that the 'human team' seemed pretty anxious to draw as their 'operator' was kibitzing draw requests several times as in "How about we draw these last games, we want to go drink beer here..." And that was a _real_ post from the human operator, although whether it was serious or not I don't know. :) So it is still possible that a 2500+ rating will emerge, but after 10 games, it is going to get harder and harder to pull this 2480 up... > >Before I can change my opinion I still need some data on Rebel 10.5. I am one >who does not assume Rebel 10.5 is stronger then say Rebel 10, just because it >has a higher version number on it. Nor do I assume Rebel 10.5 is as strong as >Fritz 5.32 or Hiarcs 7.32 or Chessmaster 6000 without any data to back it up. >Those questions must be answered first before we start claiming that the Rebel >10.5?s results playing against Grandmaster is a typical results with any of the >other top proven programs on the SSDF list. > > > >> >>Looking at the few 40/2 games played so far by programs against strong human >>opponents, I wonder if results wouldn't be similar if played against 2300 >>people. The positional superiority of a 2300 player is still immense, and for >>them it might be a matter of avoiding tactics, as wise IMs and GMs do when >>playing computer programs. Maybe the Elo system works differently for programs? >> >>Aside form this, I don't think it makes sense to use the same opening book in >>comp-comp and in human-comp games. It is quite absurd to play openings that lead >>to positional games, where programs are quite dumb, and this is happening too >>often. Is it not a better idea to build a gambit-like book that tries to open >>the game and play tactics? Same for playing style. A program can afford to play >>the Orthodox against another program, because neither will understand a thing, >>but against a strong human player it's a mistake. Look, for instance, at Rebel-2 >>yesterday. >> >>Enrique
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.