Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 10:51:48 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 12:34:44, Peter Kappler wrote: >On December 07, 1999 at 09:59:08, Charles Unruh wrote: > >>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. > >This is completely wrong - you need to understand the ELO rating system before >you make these kinds of statements. Even at a 400 point rating differential, >the lower rated player has a win expectancy of .091, meaning that a mere 2370 >player could expect to draw 2 games out of 10 against Anand. > > The >>likelyhood however that the draw that rebel got out of two games was that 1 in a >>100 seems a bit slim. > >Indeed 1/100 would be slim, but as I explained above, the odds are *much* better >than this... > > 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 not 100% certain that Rebel *isn't* playing at GM strength. Frankly, I >think there still haven't been enough games to know for certain. Akopian's >opinion is one I would value highly, but in the end, the only evidence that >really matters is how Rebel performs in 40/2 games against strong humans. So >far it has achieved a performance rating of 2485, and that isn't quite GM >strength. (And certainly not high enough to earn a GM norm) > > >>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!). > >Sure, fine - that's Bob's opinion. By the way, I think Bob tends to quote these >numbers as USCF ratings, so you'd need to deduct ~75 points to translate that to >a FIDE rating. Again, I don't care about people's opinions. We have lots of >real results now, so lets focus on them. > > 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. >> > >Maybe. The difference seems to be that you are willing to accept this on faith, >while I'd like to see more evidence... > > > >>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? >> > >You have this tendency to throw around "facts" rather loosely (see the 1/100 >silliness above). Can you please post a list of the IMs that he has played >recently? If you can't post it, then please stop making this argument. My >guess is you'll only be able to find a very tiny sample of games, in which case >the result is particularly meaningful. > Oops. I meant to say "isn't particularly meaningful". --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.