Author: John Warfield
Date: 03:09:57 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 05:06:57, Bertil Eklund wrote: >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 Excellent point 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.