Author: Tom Amburn
Date: 07:35:14 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 10:10:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 05, 1999 at 05:18:40, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 01:02:14, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>>On December 04, 1999 at 18:41:53, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On December 04, 1999 at 17:07:23, John Warfield wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 04, 1999 at 16:40:02, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>How much does it take to show blind men that Comps are GM strength. A program >>>>>>beats a GM, draws several more, then beats lithuanian national team, Draws a >>>>>>40/2 with Anand and there are people here who want to make out that it's hardly >>>>>>USCF master strength!!! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree!! And this kind of thinking is coming from people who are soppose to >>>>>be so smart??? One man holds this entire newsgroup hostage, if that man were to >>>>>change his mind tommorow about the GM issue then the whole group would follow, >>>>>mindless idiots. >>>> >>>>For every game you show me where the program beat the GM, I will show you >>>>another one where an under 2300 beat the program. Go look at the Aegon games, >>>>for instance. >>>> >>>>Signed: a blind man and mindless idiot. >>> >>> >>>How many years and computer generations ago was Aegon? What you might want to >>>show me is how many masters or Even IMs could draw ANAND in a 40/2, beat the >>>lithuanian nat'l team, beat GM sherbakov, Draw 2593 Alexander Baburin, Be called >>>a GM strength by Larry Kaufman, all in a matter of a few months. If you could >>>find one, there isn't a soul alive that would say he was lucky as opposed to GM >>>strength. >> >>Hi! >> >>Remember that Rebel have performed this good in match-play, so you can probably >>add 50-150 elo in tournament-play without increments. Strangely most >>commentators have simply "forgotten" all about this. >> >>Regards Bertil SSDF > > >I disagree. What you say is "normally" true. But it is pretty obvious that >the GM players (excepting maybe Rhode) are _not_ preparing for Rebel in any >serious way. Notice how Kasparov prepared unorthodox openings against DB. >Including game 6 where it has become pretty obvious that rather than being a >finger-slip, it was a prepared 'trap' that worked against his test opponents >(ie Fritz) but which failed badly vs DB. Notice how the other GM players have >been playing 'normal openings' and letting the position open up where the >computer is at its best. > >In normal match-play, I'd say you are right. But so far, the GM players have >played just as they would in a tournament, where Rebel was an anonymous entrant. > >IMHO of course.. Certainly you don't think that the grandmasters are not preparring for rebel?? You don't think that they have a copy of rebel century themselves? With 500 dollars on the line, and the fact that rebel has beaten a grandmaster and drawn five others you don't think they would take the time to prepare?? Think of the tremendous advantage you would have if you had the opportunity to Play against Your human opponent, the night before the tournament. Also they have got to be atleast looking at the games rebel has played against the other GM's. A grandmaster can learn much more than the average person just looking at one game! Think what they can do with 15.
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.