Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:00:09 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. > >>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 It was a wild affair. I think it shows that the GM players know so much more than the programs at times. IE after he played Bg4 (I think that was the move) all the computers went to +2 for black. Obviously that was not an accurate assessment... We have a long way to go...
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.