Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 02:06:57 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 01:38:20, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 04, 1999 at 23:38:33: >> >>> 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. > >White had not much of a choice, the Nimzovitch defence almost in every >variation ensures open play. > >>Both kings wide open, black really should have won because of it. > >I am not so sure if Rebel could have won this game. Until now I can't find a >winning line despite Rebel's 2 pawns up (one of them was worthless anyway). > >But I believe that after 53..Qd2 the game is a draw in all variations. Qd2 >is a logical move for Rebel, it forces a queen exchange and since Rebel is >up in material it is encouraged to go for the ending. Secondly it finally >solves whites pressure on the black king. Rebel sees the upcoming trouble >with the white b-pawn but for the above mentioned 2 reasons isn't dominant >enough. > >The alternatives I see are 53..Rf1 and 53..h5 > >But is that enough for a win? > >These guys are so good! > > >>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 agree wholehearted. > >At Aegon I learned how good these guys are and what they are capable of >especially in the positional area, they think in total different terms >as I used to do. After the game when they show you their thoughts and >considerations this leaves you behind in desperation, desperation in >the sense how on earth to improve "these weaknesses" in your program >they just showed to you. Impressive but most of all scaring. > > >>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... > >With the right counter ingredients (book and playing style) I think 2500-2550 >is manageable today, no single point more. Hi! If your program can play for about 2500 in match-play it should probably play about 2600 in tournaments and this is the usual way to achieve an established rating. Humans play probably around 75-125 elo lower during a tournament, because they can´t prepare as much and are much more tired in round seven than during the first round. Increments is also a very big advantage for the human. During this Internet-play, the human have double increments because of the slow transmission of moves. If Baburin had been in the serious time-trouble (against a computer)he was, during a normal game he had probably lost. Regards Bertil >>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. > >I hope to receive GM Baburin's comments soon. I am curious what he has >to say about yesterday's game. > >>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... > >Rebel Century played. > >Ed > >>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.