Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 17:46:10 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 1999 at 10:18:00, Charles Unruh wrote: >On December 05, 1999 at 18:44:57, James Robertson 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!!! >> >>Rebel must be GM strength. How else could it lose to the Lithuanian National >>team, lose to Anand, lose to Rohde, lose to Hofman, and lose to who knows who >>else. > >Oh Kasparov lost to sokolov, that must mean he's no where near to 2830 right >> >>If we just count Rebel's victories it is unquestionable super grandmaster. If we >>count just its losses it is unquestionably 1500. Average them out, and you get >>IM. > >It would be one thing if these victories where all spaced out. However for >rebel to get it's wins all in a short period of time decreases the odds. If a >Human were to draw ANAND, beat the lithuanian nat'l team, Beat sherbakov, almost >beat a 2593 Baburin, all in a few months there is no way that you would be >trying to make out that he wasn't GM strength. Why do you continue to only focus on the wins? James is right, you must consider *all* results, not just the ones that support your viewpoint. You can not find an IM in the >world that could produce the same sort of results in the same period of time! Sure you could - in fact, I think somebody recently posted that Rebel's performance rating in the recent 40/2 games is around 2485. This sounds like a solid IM level performance to me. >Do you know Anand has not drawn a player that was only IM strength in years! Ha! Maybe because he almost never plays IMs! Super-GMs tend to make 3 or 4 tournament appearances a year, usually in Category 18-20 events where they face nothing but other super-GMs. So this "statistic" of yours is of questionable value. >Further you can't totally judge a program by results. You might want to reconsider this statement... Why you ask? Becasue the >comp doesn't know who you are. An example of what i mean is this I have had >several draws against Comps by 3 repetition. The comp takes the draw because >the position is basically equal and it doesn't KNOW that i'm not a GM. A GM >would break the rep, even if it was a slightly inferior move because he knows >i'm only 2000 and he can beat me. It's not that the comp wouldn't destroy me if >played an alternative move to the rep, yet this would lower the rating. This is an easy problem to fix - most programs let you set a "contempt factor" which will tell a program to avoid a draw unless the score drops below a certain value. I might add that while this might be an issue in games against weaker players, it's basically a non-issue against GMs. >> >>This is true for ANYBODY. Don't blindly filter out the results you don't want to >>see and claim that you have discovered something amazing. > > >I wish you would stop blindly filtering out results you don't want to see and as >for this line "and claim that you have discovered something amazing." I would >imagine that their are a good number of psychiatrist in your local area you >might want to meet with to discuss your ongoing confusion. Why do you have to start insulting him, Charles? He made a perfectly valid objection to your line of reasoning. --Peter
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.