Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:06:13 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 01:10:54, Charles Unruh wrote:
>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?
Horribly poor analogy. I am saying:
Once GM players start to "play the opponent" and stop "playing the board"
things become _much_ harder for the computer. Because _all_ of them have
some absolutely glaring holes. I don't consider spotting a serious weakness
and then playing to that weakness anything at all like "stealing the
opponent's playbook"...
>>
>>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.
>
It isn't _my_ logic you are referring to. _ANY_ human plays 'down' when he
gets stuck in opening systems he doesn't like/understand. He also plays "up"
when he plays pet opening lines. Happens all the time. At all rating levels.
That's why GMs prepare for specific opponents, to take them out of opening
systems they are familiar with (unless they prepare specific traps to exploit
unknown holes of course).
>>
>>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.