Author: Howard Exner
Date: 13:00:21 12/05/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1997 at 08:52:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Place Name Points Rounds Buchholz >> 1 REBEL 9.0 10.0 11 82.0 >> 2 Hiarcs 6.0 8.5 11 83.0 >> 3 Nelson Pinal (IM) 8.5 11 80.0 >> 4 Manuel Dominguez (FM) 8.5 11 79.5 >> 5 Gustavo Hermandez (IM) 8.0 11 78.0 >> 6 Fernando Cabrera 8.0 11 74.5 >> 7 ChessMaster 5000 8.0 11 73.0 >> 8 Luis Arzeno 8.0 11 71.0 >> 9 Salvador Potentini 8.0 11 66.5 >>10 Ramon Mateo (IM) 7.5 11 81.5 >> >>Bob, do you now finally believe the current micro's play "at least" >>on IM level on tournament time control :)) >> >>- Ed Schroder - > >Unless I am terribly forgetful, I believe I have said this all along. I >don't believe they play at the GM level yet. They are tactically strong >enough that anyone can get into trouble until humans learn how to play >against computers. But the GM players know "oh so much more" than all >of >the micros added together that the micros are simply not there yet... > >I don't know any of the IM players above. I do know several on the >chess >servers and every one of them are stronger against computers than the >above >group. How do you know they are stronger at 40/2 in a real tournament? >The problem is that humans adapt. Yes they do. > >Again, rig up an automatic interface and play on any server where there >are IM and GM players. Didn't the gm's get their butts kicked last year in the game in 30 internet tournament( I believe Crafty was part of this butt kicking contingent)? Of course like you I believe that the computers are not GM strength. Where do you place them? Strong Expert? Weak IM? >Then come back and tell me how far behind the >good >humans you really think you are, after watching. Why bother when a real tournament result has been presented here. Ditto for all the excellent Junior results in real tournaments. >IE from what I have >seen, >both Rebel and Genius will have severe problems with the "attackers" >because >of the way you do king safety. In the few games I've seen Rebel 8/9 >play >against these players, it has a hard time deciding what is going on, and >often attacks when it thinks it is appropriate, but it seems to not >under- >stand diagonals and attacks from pieces across the board. Could you post these games? I'm interested in playing over these games(include time controls) but they seem harder to find. Recall how swiftly Bronstein disposed of computers in past Aegon events using bizarre anti-computer strategies but how in the most recent event this didn't work. >Against >*most* >players, this isn't a problem. Against "computer-aware" opponents, it >is >a *serious* flaw. you just haven't encountered those "computer-aware" >opponents in any numbers yet. Are you saying the Aegon human players are not "computer-aware"? >If you visit ICC, I'll be happy to >introduce >you to a few. :) I have met them myself. They are a tough lot. But >you >have to do this with an automatic interface so they can play enough >games >to become familiar with what you can/can't handle... one or two isn't >enough. I've entered tournaments similar to the one above and finished >in first place as well. But in looking at the games, I can clearly see >who should have won. IE Crafty won last year's Pan Am tournament here >in >the states, with some really strong competition in that event. But it >isn't >a GM. It isn't even a "near-the-top IM". I don't think any are. >*yet*. > >We are getting by on a little knowledge and a lot of search. There are >players that can search as well, and have a *lot* more knowledge. They >are >a big problem... This a becoming a common response whenever someone posts good results from a 40/2 tournament. Bob, do you believe that ICC results are an equal indicator of computer strength as are real tournament condition results?
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.