Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: LCT II Fin4, Deep Thought, and Deep Blue (was Re: LCT II results...)

Author: Amir Ban

Date: 09:06:25 01/07/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 07, 1998 at 08:41:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On January 07, 1998 at 06:24:02, Amir Ban wrote:
>>On January 06, 1998 at 20:10:07, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>This I don't follow.  What micro has beaten a GM in 40/2?  In a match
>>>of 40/2?  What micro has beaten as many GM's as DB in anything
>>>blitz, where most micros do ok at times)...
>>Are you joking ? This is happening all the time nowadays. I didn't
>>count, but I think the most numbers of computer wins over GM's at full
>>time come from Aegon. There's also Rebel-Yusupov, and I think I remember
>>at least one time with Fritz  (Glek ?). My own contribution is Gofshtein
>>(1994) and Kossashvili (1996). There are only several GM-computer games
>>played each year, but the computers have decent percentages, which is
>>not surprising since they are playing at the strong-IM/GM level
>1.  Last time I looked, Aegon wasn't full tournament time control.  It
>was faster.

Yes it is. You are splitting hairs. Few tournaments are 40/120 any
longer anyway, including the WCH. The most common format I saw lately
was 30/90 + rest/60.

>2.  computers are not yet at strong IGM level in tournament chess.  In
>blitz, yes.  40/2?  Nope.

As you wish, but you are becoming lonely in this opinion, and have to
ignore or explain away an ever increasing amount of conflicting

>>Matches ? There weren't any. OK, there was Rebel-Yusupov, and
>>Junior-J.Polgar (which I lost). These things don't happen because
>>there's no money. The truth is that there was only one company that
>>would put up a million dollars to drag the world champion to its back
>>yard, and even it lost interest now. I know from experience that even a
>>few thousand dollars is next to impossible to get. We are trying to
>>organize a Polgar rematch without success for two years, and there are
>>plans to organize a Junior-Alterman match which proceed smoothly until
>>money is discussed.
>there have been other micro matches.  With disastrous results.  There
>have been DB matches with predicted results.  The two aren't close.

Other GM-computer matches ? Where, when and what result ? (BTW, I didn't
forget about Hiarcs-Hergott, it's just that Hergott is a mere IM).

>>Most GM wins at non-blitz ? I have eight: Gofshtein, Bikhovsky, Har-Zvi
>>(twice), Liss, Finkel, J.Polgar, Kossashvili, plus a few draws including
>what time controls?  I beat Walter Browne in a (roughly) 30 second per
>move match.  5 computers beat 5 GM's a year ago in a game/30 tournament.
>But those are *not* tournament time controls.

(Big sigh) Non-blitz means 30 min/game or more. I was rather careful to
look at your question and answer it in the exact terms you phrased it,
but I had the feeling you will shoot me down anyway.

Actually on a recount it's 9, since I forgot Gurevich. I'm not sure I
want to count it since it was played in the Harvard Cup where nothing
much was at stake. All the other wins were in serious play with money
and rating points at stake.

>I can post perhaps a *hundred* wins against GM's at non-blitz.  But I
>can also post several hundred losses.  :)
>But the
>problems are:  (1) they are still "skittles"-type games with no prizes
>or anything;  (2) they are *not* 40/2...  many are game/30, some are
>of the form 30/30 (30 mins + 30 sec increment) and so forth.  But I'm
>enough to know that crafty is *not* a gm-level player.  That's wishful
>thinking...  The best GM's are still *very* difficult, even at blitz.
>less "standard" time controls...

Your rhetorical skills are admirable. You list some rather unserious
facts about crafty, dismiss them out of hand, and imply that I have done
the same.

No, ICC and private games don't count, for good reason. Must make one
important exception to this of course: Any unsupervised and unpublished
10-game match played at your home/office at an unknown date in unclear
conditions against uncertain opponents and the result spread through
hearsay counts as irrefutable evidence and is given precedence over any
other fact.


This page took 0.01 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.