Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:09:27 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2002 at 13:09:16, Chessfun wrote: >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. Ok... > > >>*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." Well there are wether you are aware of it or not. There are plenty of games lost by them as well, mostly at blitz and bullet. Nothing extraordinary there. Just a few years ago, when I was in better form I was beating strong programmes at blitz, G/5 and I'm not a GM. >To me that's an extraordinary claim. To you not me. > >>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. Yes it is pointless, as all are blitz including G/1 and G/2 but they are referred to as Bullet Chess. G/3 well it may not be considered Bullet Chess, I'm not sure so yes I could be wrong and as you say trivial/pointless to debate. > >>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. So you concur they are Super GM's? Maybe at G/2 but not at slow time controls. You're right though, it's opinion, not _scientific_ fact! >I'm confident to draw my own conclusions too Sarah, I've played computers on and off for 20 years! Only in the last few years and out of shape, have I had a tough time with them. I remember arguing with masters that machines one day would be masters, I was laughed at in 1985. They became masters! I argued more than a decade later with a GM that one day they would even beat the World Chess Champion, again I was laughed at! I admit that the win by Deeper Blue over Kasparov in '97 shouldn't have happened, at least not then but it did. My opinion of course. But there is data to back me here, and quite logical. People are rarely logical. I know without a doubt someday computers will be better than the best human player, but that day hasn't arrived just yet, but I know it will. IMOBIL The best a GM could hope for is a draw, when computers reach this elusive level of play. >>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. So you don't know. He has a super record against humans, so it is logical he must win many or quite a few games against computers as well, maybe not as well as human matches, but not all humans are so bad against machines. I may be wrong, maybe I should contact him? However, then I would only have his word not proof, if he told me he faired 60/40 or whatever the number. Niether of us can know for certain. > >>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'm all too well aware of that situation Sarah! Bad idea bringing those idiots into this! They can take a flying leap....well you get the picture. Frankly the FIDE is in shambles until and if something is done with the organization. > >>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. So you don't actually know do you? Not for certain, as I can't know with any real certainty either? I do know who does know, and that's the Grandmasters! As well as many IM's. How many play long time controls with computers? Probably not too many and there are players who top the FIDE list who play there sometimes, and would win serious matches against computers. Or do you subscribe to the notion machines have beaten humankind? It hasn't happened, at least not yet. It will in time, I have no doubt about it. Just not today, not yet. > >>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.!!. You're Welcome! > >Sarah. 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.