Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: No more Excuses Dr. Hyatt, you said if Fritz beats Huebner then C =GM

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 10:08:08 07/15/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 15, 2001 at 12:57:28, Mark Young wrote:

>On July 15, 2001 at 12:49:55, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On July 15, 2001 at 12:24:01, Mark Young wrote:
>>
>>>On July 15, 2001 at 10:57:47, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 15, 2001 at 07:58:10, odell hall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Don't do what you did on the Van Diel Wiel match and Renig, you said if rebel
>>>>>beat Van Der Wiel then computers are GM's , But you back out.
>>>>
>>>>First Dr. Hyatt is away for a week. So he won't even see you message! Didn't you
>>>>read he was off for a holiday?
>>>>
>>>>Second, GM John van der Wiel played a very short match with Rebel Century, and
>>>>the first time he'd ever lost a match to computer, and that was by a mere point.
>>>>
>>>>GM John van der Wiel is an excellent player but not a 2600+ GM, at least not at
>>>>present. Yet he could turn a second match with Rebel Century around I'm sure.
>>>>Not putting down Rebel, it's an excellent chess program, but not a World Class
>>>>GM 2600+, at least not yet!;)
>>>>
>>>>Third, GM Huebner isn't a young man anymore, so I doubt he can play like he is!
>>>
>>>I don't understand your point. GM Huebner is a active Grandmaster with a current
>>>Fide Rating of 2600+. So GM Huebner must play like a 2600+ Grandmaster at his
>>>current age, since his rating is that good.
>>Maybe, but I'm sure he fatigues more often than a 2600+ 20 year old GM with an
>>equal rating. So he may have times when he performs below is rating.
>>
>>That's my point!
>>>
>>>If GM Huebner loses the match to Fritz, Fritz will have beaten a standing 2600+
>>>Fide Grandmaster.
>>
>> Yes that's true. But does it make Deep Fritz on a dual P-III with a Gig. of
>>Ram, a Grandmaster?

I don't believe so.
>
>Right, Grandmaster is only a title, but it is another nail in the coffen for
>those who think the best programs are not of "GM strength".

I agree! However, there is still much data to obtain to say with certainty that
todays' programs are at the GM level. If you wish to be objective, scientific.

Personally, I think that todays' programs run on very fast hardware are indeed,
weak GM's! However not _World Class_ GM's;)


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Forth, do you know more than Professor Hyatt? Are you a programmer? Better yet
>>>>are you a GM??
>>>>
>>>>I don't know anything about you odell hall with the exception, you could show a
>>>>little more respect!
>>>>
>>>>As for the todays' game GM Huebner played Black and brought about a draw on move
>>>>23!
>>>>
>>>>So we'll see for fun how the rest of the very short match will go;) Myself, I
>>>>don't think tiny matches such as these have any great value in determining
>>>>whether a program has reached the GM level, only that these programs can give a
>>>>GM a good fight, and may win from time to time.
>>>>
>>>>Give both technology and programming another 5 years and I believe by then we'll
>>>>have _solid_ GM 2600+ chess playing monsters!
>>>>
>>>>Terry



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.