Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:09:16 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2002 at 12:52:27, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 27, 2002 at 10:04:32, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>Please name just one. The most well known Roman himself under the Jrlok handle >>>>has a score of +1 =0 -5 against Rebelrex. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>Those are biltz games, and if 3/0 them bullet, >> >> >>3/0 is still blitz, however thse were 5/12. >> >> >> and comps. are better at bullet >>>then almost anyone! >>> >>>Why should I do all the searches, it is up to people who claim that comps. are >>>indeed better than all humans except for the top ten or so IE 2700+ in the world >>>on (PC's no less) to prove it not me. >> >>You made a statement. >>If your statement is challenged it's up to you to prove you are correct. >> >>>"Extraordinary Claims need Extraoridinary Evidence"! >> >>My point above. I never made an extraordinary claim! *See Below. >> >>Sarah. > > Please treat me with a little respect, ok? I certainly have shown you this >courtesy. I don't think I've said anything for you to feel otherwise. I apologize if you feel my comments were unfair. >*It was _not_ *I* who _claimed_ computers play at 2700+! That's the >extraordinary claim. OK that was what you meant, was an extraordinary claim. Mine is that you wrote; "There are plenty of games at ICC where GM's and IM's are still winning more than losing to comps." To me that's an extraordinary claim. >The point *Is*, it's up to Chris Carson to _prove_ his statement not me! > >3/0 is Blitz yes, and can be rightfully called bullet chess as well. > >Games in 1 min., 2 min. and 3 min. fall under that category. No time increments. >Maybe I'm wrong? But I think that's correct. I think you are wrong, but it's a pointless argument. >Dr. Hyatt has very good data on ICC with Crafty vs. GM's and he feels that >software/hardware is not yet solid GM strength, I concur with him. I trust his >findings are sound. He has data from colleagues as well. Thirty plus years is >alot of experience in the field of computer chess. And how many years with ICC? I don't doubt Dr. Hyatt has very good data, however I'm confident enough to come to my own conclusions. Chris Carson has a list posted at Tony Hedlund's website, so I'm sure in Chris opinion he has _proved_ his statements. >GM Roland Schmaltz, aka Hawkeye, probably has a good score against computers and >I'm certain there are a few more, who play at ICC. I know he's LETHAL to most >humans!;) Of course I know you know the latter. Who doesn't?:) Actually I doubt Hawkeye has a good record. He won't AFAIK even play them anymore. >Besides, it's 40/2 T/C's that should be used in determining strength rather than >bullet and blitz games, IMO. Those are NOT current FIDE controls however Chris list is based for the most part at 40/2. >I would think Dr. Hyatt would have data here too:) Actually he, not too long ago >mentioned/indicated some good results for the GM's against computers and >at the very long time control of 3/0! So some know how to better fight these >"silicon beasts" in thier own environment! Not an easy task by no means. I know of NO human playing on ICC who has a positive result against a professional program at any controls. Especially in mind is they play more than one game. >I appreciate all the hard work you do organizing and running computer >tournaments, your work in this area, comps. vs comps. is invaluable! >Please keep up the good work! Thanks.!!. Sarah.
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.