Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:54:46 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 18:41:47, odell hall wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 18:16:43, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 17:04:27, odell hall wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2001 at 14:06:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 13, 2001 at 13:31:43, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 12:24:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 13, 2001 at 10:24:56, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In this upcoming match next month Deep Fritz tops on the SSDF list will be >>>>>>>playing a 6 game match with GM Hubner (2620 Elo). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This match should be good indication if computers are now grandmasters. GM >>>>>>>Hubner at 2620 is very close to the performance rating of the computers that >>>>>>>have played grandmasters at tournament time controls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Deep Fritz is a well-known program, so GM Hubner should have ample time to find >>>>>>>holes in the program and exploit them if he is able. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Being match play should also help the Grandmaster if Bob Hyatt is correct. (I >>>>>>>also think this is correct). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If Fritz puts in a Grandmaster performance in this upcoming match, the evidence >>>>>>>that computers are grandmasters start to become overwhelming. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I would not disagree, unless Hubner goes hog-wild. IE the Kramnik match is for >>>>>>a small fortune. Kramnik will have a huge incentive to win. But he may well >>>>>>win by one game only, since that is all that is needed (if I were playing such >>>>>>a match against a computer, I would take all the 'easy' draws that came along >>>>>>until I reached a position that looked like it was winnable without having any >>>>>>unnecessary opportunities to lose as well). >>>>> >>>>>I agree, that why I think the Deep Fritz match will be more telling. Lucky for >>>>>us we can disagee all we want...but the data is coming whoever is right. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The Kramnik match will be interesting. I think he +could+ probably overwhelm >>>>>>DF. I don't think he will because the strategy for winning a match is to not >>>>>>try to win every game. Probably he would want to draw every game with black >>>>>>and play for reasonable winning chances with white. If this was not a match, >>>>>>but a series of 6 games with $100,000 per game for each win, the strategy >>>>>>would change. >>>>> >>>>>Yes I also agree, also Kramnik rating is so high DF only needs to draw a few >>>>>games to have a GM performance. What will be more telling in this match is if >>>>>DF-7 can win a game, somthing even GM Kasparov was unable to do. If Kramnik >>>>>Draws every game with black DF-7 earns a GM performance with ease. That is why >>>>>you need to take a closer look at Deep Junior at Dortmund were Deep Junior >>>>>played all, and every game was important. >>>> >>>>IF DF draws all games as black, and loses all games as white, I wouldn't _begin_ >>>>to say that is a GM performance. Rather, I would say it was just good match >>>>strategy by the GM to not try to overcome the disadvantage of moving second in >>>>those games. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Which means that in the Hubner match, Hubner might win every game, he might >>>>>>barely win the match (by playing very safe) or he might lose marginally or >>>>>>by a whopping score. But winning every game is not the goal in a 6 game >>>>>>match, and a GM will likely keep that in mind. >>>>> >>>>>I think for you to be correct, GM Hubner must win this match. We can argue later >>>>>about how much DF lost by if that is the case. >>>> >>>>The only useful information will be learned dependiong on which of the following >>>>happens: >>>> >>>>1. Hubner wins handily. Fritz is "suspect". >>>> >>>>2. Hubner wins. Hubner is better than fritz. Could be several hundred >>>>rating points better, since the draws could be strategy for winning the match >>>>at the cost of .5 points here and there. >>>> >>>>3. Fritz barely wins. Fritz is very likely a GM-level player. Not >>>>necessarily anywhere near Hubner's rating, but still probably a GM, unless >>>>we all see something very ugly going on. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Why would Fritz earn this esteemed title in your eyes by beating Hubner, but not >>>Rebel Century3, which Crushed Van der Wiel, in the Same six game 40/2 setup?? >>>Actually i think the win against Van der Wiel would prove more, since Van der >>>Wiel is a known computer buster. >> >>Nonsense, Van der Wiel is rank 611th in the world, GM Hubner is ranked 70th. You >>do not get bonus points for being a so called computer buster. Van der Wiel is >>not even a 2500+ Grandmaster. The computer was the favorite in the match IMO. >> > > >Inaccurate, Van Der Wiel was rated 2558 at the time of the match, and rebel >actually Won 4-2, Shroeder simply gave Charity in the last game, but on the >board Van der Wiel was busted, so if you beat a 2558 Grandmaster 4-2 in a Six >game match that suggest how much of an elo advantage?? For me this was all the >evidence needed. The question is if the 2558 is based on all the games before the match because it is known that if you look at the rating you miss the last games of the GM that were not calculated. Another question is about his ability at that time. What is Van der viel's performance against humans in the last year before the match? I understood that he did not have good results against humans at that time. Uri
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.