Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 06:59:08 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 1999 at 20:46:10, Peter Kappler wrote: >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 - No you couldn't not against similar competition, in the same amount of time. Sure an IM could get a draw against Anand maybe 1 in a 100 games. The likelyhood however that the draw that rebel got out of two games was that 1 in a 100 seems a bit slim. What's even more amazing is that Just as Bertil Eklund has said these are results in match play. Rebel would be even stronger in a swiss system even where all these opponents had not come prepared to play it in specific. I have it on no less an authority than Vagr (Vladamir Akopian GM) that "Computer programs are at least low to mid-level Grandmaster strength." I'm sure that you have even seen Kaufman saying they were GM strength several software and processor generations ago. Even Robert HYATT back when we had a mere Hiarcs 6 running on a p200 said then he thought they were 2450(AND IT IS IN THE RECORD!). Though strangely, even though, We have 1 gigahertz machines commercially available, and 2 software generations later, he and people like you don't want to admit that they've improved one point. Comps are GM's have a coke and a smile. 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! He has played several though, and i wonder why they didn't just happen to get that lucky one in a hundred draw hmmm? 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... > You say I might reconsider and half a paragraph down admit i'm right, well thank you i appreciate that. > > 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 - Oh so it's a problem like i said, imagine that. 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. > It's a total issue, with IMs, GMs, and everyday patzers. This sort of thing doesn't just happen with perpetual check. It happens In many positions because the computer chooses moves that it supposes are the best instead of a move that might be objectively inferior that leads to complications to beat a weaker opponent because it doesn't know that you are not Kasparov. > >>> >>>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 His claim is bogus, and this statement "and claim that you have discovered something amazing." is moronic, and at the same time attempting to be smartassholic(word construct). So if you spit fire you get fire.
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.