Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 22:10:54 12/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1999 at 23:38:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 04, 1999 at 17:32:11, walter irvin wrote: > >> i think the debate on if programs are GM or not are about to end .all its going >>to take is a couple more speed ups in mhz and its over .man is trying to hold on >>but in the end man will be ground up like hamburger meat . rebel has been doing >>well with this GM challenge . myself im surprised the GM's dont do better .they >>know who they are playing , no excuse not to be prepared . >> >>in 5 years computers are just going to be too fast , even if programers stop now >>and make no more improvements .i mean the day hiarcs gets 6,000,000 nps GM's are >>going to start to need odds of knight or so . > > >GMs are still refusing to acknowledge how strong computers are, and as a result, >they are playing right into the computer's strength. IE today's game was _not_ >the way to play against a computer. Both kings wide open, black really should >have won because of it. Oh so what you are saying is that if a person plays "regular chess", then they wont stand any chance because progs are GM strength at "regular chess"?? So you have to revert to some anti-comp strategy to take advantage of the opponents weakness, because the opponent can't do the same to the GM. Sort of like Team A stealing Team B's play book, and then playing the football game huh? > >Once they 'get the message' and start studying (as some have) it will get >harder for the computers once again. There are already some GMs that >understand this. More will join the parade once they realize that if they >try their tactical nonsense, they are putting their neck on a chopping block. > >I'm still sticking with my 2450 estimate (FIDE). Although I would definitely >say that if a GM is going to play wild games, a computer is probably 2550 or >so. And if he plays away from the computer's strength, then 2450 is in the >ballpark although it may be a bit high... So a computer can play between 2450(IM strength) and 2550(medium GM strength)? So 2500 GMs never play a game below 2500 strength? Cause if they did by the logic described above they wouldn't be GM strength players. > >But GM players have _big_ egos. And they want to play the way they always >play. And until they conquer that urge and start to understand what 'anti- >computer' is about, they will have plenty of trouble... > >Too bad today's game didn't result in a win for Rebel. You are right about that, but i think the Imbalances were dynamic enough and Baburin played strong so i think the result was fair. > >Btw, Ed. Someone said today's game was played by Rebel-Tiger rather than >Rebel. Correct or incorrect??? I don't remember who, but it was something >mentioned on ICC right after the game ended... > > >Bob
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.