Author: odell hall
Date: 23:45:01 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 23:32:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On February 17, 2000 at 18:33:20, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>The morbid fear of playing on against Deep Junior and the "true" result against
>>super GM players shows that (I think) at G/60, a computer does play like a GM.
>>Maybe even a super
>
>
>3-4 years ago, I would have said "You are as full of crap as a Christmas
>turkey..." But since then, I have greatly revised my opinion here. It
>started when Crafty, Ferret, ChessMaster, and one other program played in
>a round robin event on chess.net with 4 GM players. The time control was
>not sudden death I don't think, but was 30 something where something was
>very short (it _might_ have been 30 0, but I don't remember). In that
>event, every computer played every GM. And at the end, all the computers
>had better scores than the best GM. IE we owned the top 1/2 of the places,
>the GMs owned the last 4 places.
holy cow!!! Are we finally seeing some concessions from Robert Hyatt!!!
Unbelievable!!! I do believe it is a cold day in hell!!
>
>After a few more such events that I personally played in, I became convinced
>that at 30 0 and 60 0, GM players have _great_ difficulty. They do one of
>two things: (a) the press too hard early to try and win before time becomes
>an issue, and this usually fails; (b) they get low on time and then get badly
>out-blitzed by the computer. I don't think computers can beat _ALL_ GM players
>at that time control, because I know a couple that are _serious_ problems since
>they understand computers very well. But most are going to roll over at 30 0
>and 60 0.
>
>At longer time controls, particularly non-sudden-death time controls, time isn't
>as much of an issue, and the game doesn't resolve into a blitz match which a GM
>most likely can't win.
>
>We are probably seeing the "end" of the welcome-wagon for computers in human
>chess, particularly at faster time controls.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I think that Amir and Shay should be justifiably proud of their effort. Any
>>machine+program that can strike fear into the heart of a super-GM is an
>>astonishing thing.
>>
>>I think that Adams is not to blame for any controversy. If I were a player, I
>>would always push for any edge I could get, even with the arbitration committee.
>
>I have chatted with him a few times on ICC. He didn't seem like the type to
>behave as he appeared to behave. I believe that KC was the _real_ problem here,
>with no idea of how to manage such a tournament, no idea of how to anticipate
>the problems and have written protocols ready to handle them, rather than resort
>to a poorly-conceived knee-jerk reaction that made the entire KC enterprise look
>like a bunch of amateurs.
>
>I begin to suspect Adams was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It
>could have been _any_ GM on the other end and KC would have screwed this up just
>as badly, unless both ends were GM players.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Any shame (and there is clearly some to go around) goes to the arbitration
>>party.
>>{purely}IMO-YMMV.
>
>
>
>At least to the person(s) responsible for a decision that was nothing short
>of ridiculous.
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.