Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:08:37 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 10:35:14, Tom Amburn wrote: >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. No I don't think they are preparing seriously as they would in a match against a human. The games speak for themselves. Sacrificial lines. Wide open lines. Only Rhode went for the normal strangle-hold on the position. I agree that they can learn a lot. I just don't believe they are ready to accept that they _must_ do this to avoid getting into huge tactical difficulties. Once they accept it, things will get more interesting. I play a _lot_ of GM players on ICC. Only one plays anti-computer. He has _far_ better results than anyone else. Kotronias tried some open lines against Crafty last night and won 2 and lost 11 in 5 3 blitz. cptnbluebear doesn't win a lot, but he draws a bunch. But he plays differently... aiming at the computer's weaknesses, _not_ its strength...
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.