Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:18:29 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 15:32:44, robert michelena wrote:
>My main conflict is with people who continue to insist that average strength
>players can defeat commercial programs playing at the strongest setting.
>
>Now, I realize that for many who post here, english is not their main language,
>so I have been understanding.
Actually, we understood you perfectly. It is someone else in the thread who is
missing the boat and ignoring the evidence.
>Let me repeat. My contention, and I see nothing in the posted record to
>indicate otherwise, is that NO NON GM strength
This was your original contention. Clearly absurd. Here it is in print from
http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/message.html?82711 :
"I stand by my comment, and by now, my well known view. To suggest that anybody
who is not a grandmaster can beat a commercial program is to insult our common
sense. These programs can search faster and deeper then any human. They can
and often do defeat top grandmasters."
>(or IM strength player if you
>insist) can defeat a commercial program at its strongest setting.
You have knuckled under to admit at least this, but it is obvious that players
who are not IM's or even FM's have beaten computers at their strongest setting.
>There are those who insist that human players of average, non master strength
>can do so on a regular basis.
Where is this insistance. Supply a quote please? This is what is known as a
straw man. You set up a silly argument and knock the crap out of it. Look how
foolish! Average players can beat up on top computer programs! "HA HA HA HA HA
HA!" to quote a famous troll. But nobody actually said that. What _was_ said
is that occasionally someone who is not a great player *can* beat a computer.
The lower the skill, the less probable it becomes. However, at no point does it
become impossible. Not only does this happen, but you were given direct
evidence. You said "It might be faked!" but it is clear that there were too
many witnesses for that to be the case. The funny thing about the whole episode
is that you have provided NO evidence or proof of any kind whatsoever.
And yet, you make posts like:
http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/message.html?82898
http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/message.html?82856
Which are clearly insulting and calling the previous poster a liar.
>If you agree with that and if the players in the
>AEGON tournament were average players, then so be it.
From:
http://www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/people/steve/rgcfaq.html
"Subject: [1] Federation Internationale des Echecs (FIDE)
FIDE (pronounced "fee-day") is an international chess organization that
organizes tournaments (e.g. Olympiad), grants titles, and controls the World
Championship cycle. Write to: Federation Internationale des Echecs, PO Box 700
80, GR-16610 Glyfada, Athens, Greece. or Iridos 11, GR-16673 Voula, Athens,
Greece
Tel: (30)1-895 8251
Fax: (30)1-965 7202
Tel+Fax: (30)1-895 5259
FIDE grants three over-the-board titles: FIDE Master (FM), International Master
(IM), and International Grandmaster (IGM; but more commonly just "Grandmaster"
and "GM"). FM can be obtained by keeping your FIDE rating over 2300 for 25
games. IM and GM titles require performances at certain levels for 25-30 games
(2450 for IM and 2600 for GM). This is usually achieved by obtaining several
"norms." A norm is obtained when a player makes at least a given score in a FIDE
tournament. The required score is a function of the number of rounds and the
strength of the opposition. There are also minimum rating requirements. There
are about 35 GM's, 60 IM's, and 100 FM's living in the U.S., not all of whom are
active players.
FIDE also grants titles for which only women are eligible: FIDE Woman Master,
International Woman Master (IWM; but _Chess Life_ often uses "Woman
International Master" and "WIM") and International Woman Grandmaster (WGM).
Women are also eligible for the other titles.
FIDE also grants titles for Chess Composition, Composition Judging, Tournament
Direction (as "Arbiter"), and Correspondence Chess; and maintains a separate
rating list (and titles) for "Action chess" (G/30)."
Hence, those at AEGON were neither FM's, IM's, or GM's. They clearly beat the
commercial programs. You have been shown physical, verifiable evidence that
proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. You have provided no
evidence whatsoever to support your claims -- not even "hearsay". The only
thing you try to back up your assertions with is ridicule and bluster.
I cannot understand why you have not been shamed into admitting your error by
this point in time. I know I would be red-faced {err... speaking of beating
chess programs, let me restate that GNU-Chess is *NOT* a pansy}
;-)
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.