Author: Howard Exner
Date: 18:15:17 09/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 1999 at 18:22:45, odell hall wrote: > Personally, I think everyone is "pulling the Trigger" alittle to fast >on this GM Question. (I hope I am not offending anyone with my "Pulling the >Trigger statement) I think there are way to few games to jump to such >Extravagant conclusions.(I mean with the rebel GM challenge). Can We truthfully >believe that based on ten games, the whole grandmaster question is settled? Yes I agree that there seems to be a heavy emphasis on this GM challenge becoming some kind of measuring tool for answering the question, "do computers play at a GM level?" Valid comparisons not only need sufficient data but data that is obtained in an equal way. Take any two rising IM's and compare how they eventually achieved the coveted GM title. Both went through the same hoops to get there - namely tournament play (variety of opponents, not knowing what the next pairing will be). But now for the moment imagine one of them having to go through a different route such as what Rebel is doing. How could we then compare the two since they are competing on two different levels? >Remember the 2480 number is including the loss to hoffman, which has been shown >to be "suspect". Including this Hoffman game is way too rigid. Sure the official score was 1-0 for Hoffman. But using this defeats the real point of this GM challenge, namely the moves made on the chessboard. Suppose the Lithuanian team decided to cancel out at the last moment. Would we rigidly say, Rebel wins 4-0? After all it's only fair since that's what happened with Fischer's first two games with Spassky in 1972. Let's toss this Hoffman game out. > Another Valid Question to consider is "Is it Fair or >reasonable to suggest that because one program achieved a certain ratings then >they all would achieve the Same? We are all willing to acknowledge that >Programs all have different styles of play, would it be unreasonable to expect >that they would also have different results? The Diversity in style between >programs is as great as the diversity of play in humans. Would anyone ever >suggest that because "john doe" losses to X, then all humans would lose to X? >I think overall everyone is dissapointed in Rebel's performance, expecting >rebel to have some win's against the GM's. (myself included) Our "expectations" >not being met we tend to Exaggerate the significance of the results. As Dr Hyatt >pointed out "2480" elo pointed out is very close To GM. Apparently not even Dr. >Hyatt has ruled out the possibility that rebel will ultimately achieve it's >goal. Personally I don't agree with the whole format for determining GM >strength for Computers, When did we take a vote and decide that only Rebel's >results would determine for all computers whatever the GM Question is Answered? >Why not take the Collective results of "All" the programs as a whole? This 2480 >is only meaningful if you decide to conviently exclude all the other results of >computers against GM's.
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.