Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Computer's are Grandmasters....Until next loss

Author: odell hall

Date: 03:47:59 06/12/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 11, 2001 at 09:05:21, Chessfun wrote:

>On June 10, 2001 at 02:55:54, odell hall wrote:
>
>>On June 10, 2001 at 02:52:50, Slater Wold wrote:
>>
>>>On June 10, 2001 at 02:14:50, odell hall wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 09, 2001 at 23:56:07, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No.  I don't think so.  It was only 2 games, and not even tournament length
>>>>>games at that.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I saw how easily Petr defeated Deep Shredder, I was amazed.  He was
>>>>>kibitz'ing most of the game.  Like he didn't even have to concentrate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember, he said that Deep Shredder performance was approx. 2100-2200 FIDE in
>>>>>the game against him?  (Which it played 100x worse against him, I agree.)  Guess
>>>>>what Petr said about these games?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thoughts on ending of game 1:
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: it's very difficult for human to play positions with
>>>>>compensations for a pawn
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: may be just white has no sufficient compensation :)
>>>>>Project played like Machine :))
>>>>>
>>>>>Game 2:
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: 4...Bxc3?
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: I beat Jrlok never play Bxc3 vs human GM :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: please think about it :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) kibitzes: comp played opening like patzer again
>>>>>
>>>>>And about the series:
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) tells you: hmm, comp played like 2200 in the closed position and
>>>>>like 2600 in open :) It's hard to evaluate his strength
>>>>>
>>>>>Petrovich(GM) tells you: so, 2200+2600 / 2 = 2400 :) lol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Petr and I just went over quickly the games.  These are not annotated or
>>>>>anything, just general conversation on the games.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, please be aware that when I played Petr, I did _NOT_ prepare at all.  I
>>>>>asked him for a game, and we played.  Having been singled out by JRLOK, I
>>>>>prepared an better book.  This time when I played JRLOK, there was no in & out
>>>>>of book problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>Shredder played a much better game this time around, than last.  However, I am
>>>>>not ready to say that Shredder is GM strength.  Like Robert said, to be 2600 you
>>>>>have to play like a 2600 every game.  Not 2100 here and 2700 here.  2600 ALL THE
>>>>>TIME.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am planning more and more GM vs Shredder games.  Perhaps at the end of this
>>>>>year, we can make a FAIR guess at Deep Shredder's ELO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Slate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well if what he said is true, a 2100-22000 just beat roman , one of the
>>>>strongest grandmasters in computer chess around, and that is impressive.
>>>
>>>NO NO NO!  He rated my performance against HIM as being about 2100-2200!  Just
>>>_ONE_ game!
>>>
>>>There's NO doubt Deep Shredder is stronger, it just had a "bad game."
>>>
>>>
>>>Slate
>>
>>
>>Yep just like many humans, i was surprised though that jrlok lost, since he
>>knows computer chess so well, i expected a win.
>
>
>Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.
>Roman may lose to your program first few times, even first ten times.
>But once he sees what book lines you have, what positions you play moves like a3
>or h3 in. Then he will play some more and win some. Make no changes and he will
>pound you to pieces. This is one of the reasons I think Bob believes computers
>are NOT GM strength.
>
>Sarah.


  Hi Sarah


  I am curios what do you believe? Since you have done alot of testing of
programs, (and i have been to your site, very nice). Do you think they are Gm
Strength? I realize that technically they can never be Grandmasters , since Fide
will not give the title to a computer.




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.