Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:32:56 04/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 1998 at 00:21:19, Don Dailey wrote: >On April 25, 1998 at 22:31:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I posted this on r.g.c.c, and thought I'd also put it here for >>reference. >> >>Late this week, Roman called and asked if I'd be willing to let my >>"four-processor monster" (his words) play in a tournament on chess.net >>with him, GM Larry Christiansen and GM Yasser Sierawan. The time >>control was a "Fischer-like" 10 10 (10 minutes on the clock, 10 >>seconds added after each move.) >> >>We played 4 games today, the intent being that this ends up as a >>double-round-robin. In rounds 1/2 Crafty played Roman, starting >>with white in round 1, which it won after playing a really nice >>endgame that a couple of IM's declared drawn even though Crafty >>was up material. In round two, Roman tried his favorite computer- >>busting "London system" but things got *real* interesting. He >>castled long (as white) after crafty castled king-side, and he >>unleashed the usual pawn-storm. But rather than defending, Crafty >>chose to counter-attack on the queenside, and forced a perpetual as >>white had to accept or get mated... after two games, 1.5/2.0 for >>Crafty. Roman was obviously .5/2.0, Yasser was 1.5/2.0 vs Larry and >>Larry was tied with Roman at .5/2.0 of course. >> >>In rounds three and four, Crafty was paired against Larry. As white, >>it attacked right from the get-go and basically beheaded him in nice >>style in a *really* unusual position (white castled long, black short, >>both started pawn-storming. Crafty's storm had bigger clouds. :)) >>In round 4 Crafty was black, and won material but ended in a drawn >>position. >> >>After 4 rounds, Crafty has 3.0/4.0, Yasser has 3.0/4.0, Larry and >>Roman both have 1.0/4.0... So either Crafty or Yasser will win the >>tournament, and the worst that could happen would be that one wins >>both games, and in the other match one of those wins both games, >>meaning either crafty or yasser will win, or do no worse than tied for >>second... >> >>Before you start the "but you said no computers could play GM-class >>chess"... just remember that this is 10 10, which is something like >>game/30 except there is no sudden death to avoid... > > >Hi Bob, > >Again, as I mentioned in a previous post, I think you over-rate the >time control advantage for computers. I do not deny that computers >are better relative to humans at faster time controls, this is well >known. But 10-10 is starting to get pretty comfortable for human >players. > >If a computer is indeed in the same league as some given player at >10-10, you should not expect to be completely outclassed at tournament >time controls. The humans will certainly play MUCH stronger at 40/2 but >so will Crafty. In my opinion the difference is not as HUGE as you >would have us believe. > >- Don I think it's bigger than you think. IE I personally would expect to lose at least 3 of every 4 games at 40/2 vs a GM like Larry or Roman. Yet both are maybe 2600 level... when I lose 3 of 4 (which means I win 1 of 4 which is not a bad results when you think about it) guess where my rating ends up? 2400, that's where... and that's 150 points below what it takes to be called a GM...
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.