Author: pavel
Date: 00:12:29 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 02:53:48, Terry McCracken wrote: >On April 06, 2002 at 02:05:40, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >>On April 05, 2002 at 21:49:51, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On April 05, 2002 at 21:33:22, Jerry Doby wrote: >>> >>>>Mr. Berg is a legitamate 2500 elo player and fritz is winning the match, I have >>>>yet to see a bad computer result vs humans, yet some people stubbornly hold on >>>>to the nonsense that computers are not 2500 elo????? Barbaric ignorance I would >>>>say for sure!!! >>> >>> >>>I guess you're referring to Dr. Hyatt? I believe he said that computers and this >>>was some weeks back, may be at the 2500 level. >> >> >>I do not think that Jerry is reffering to Dr. Hyatt. He has the free opinion to >>talk about it (meanwhile do not insult anybody) and I also believe that some >>people here do not want to understand that computers played at GM Level. Best >>computers programs play definitely at 2600-2650 elo level. Why people can´t >>understant it?????? >> >Ah...yes Jerry was indeed referring to Dr. Hyatt, and has made plenty of >references about Dr. Hyatt in the past. > >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can get a second place, in the Dutch >>Tournament. (Fritz got it) Wasn't that blitz? > >Who says they are 2450 anymore? Even Dr. Hyatt has said up to 2500, although >that was an optimistic statement on his part. I feel they are around 2500 or >a bit better. > >But you still might be surprised at the strength of a 2450 player as that is >almost Grandmaster! And yes upsets occur. Also humans are not often ready to >play their "Silicon" counterparts. >> >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can beat Van Wely two times, in a four game >>match. (Rebel 4 did it!) > >Actually a 2450 player in theory could draw Loek Van Wely in a 4 game match, >these things can and do happen. > >Also GM Van Wely turned down a draw in a drawn position in Game 1, as he had a >small advantage, and blew it. >> >>I don´t think that a 2450 player can get same great results that Junior got in >>the Dortmund Tournament some time ago. It got an elo of 2701!!!!(slow time!!) > >People...GM's often underestimate computers or could be bothered to prepare >against them. Often there isn't enough money most of the time to push the GM >to win. >> >>a 2450 player can´t beat Gulko in the same way that new programs dit it! > >It could happen, as the ELO theory shows. But I feel the programs have gotten >to or a bit over 2500. >> >>AND I AM SURE THAT a 2450 player CAN´T TAKE THE FIRST PLACE, IN THE SAME WAY >>THAT THE AMAZING CHESS TIGER 14 DID IN ARGENTINA!. > >Unlikely, true, but how hard did these guys really try and the average rating >there was well _below_ 2700. Preparation may have changed the result and so >could more money. But Tiger did Great don't get me wrong. > >Also I can read well, I don't need to see a sentence in uppercase! >> >>There are many results that prove that today computer programs are indeed >>superior to 2500 elo against humans. Why. Why is so difficult to understand to >>some persons here ?????????? > >I could ask you the same question. Why can't people see why GM's often lose to >programmes that are not their equal? A 2700 could drop 3 games against a 2500 >player, not too often but it does happen. >> >>Do you need that Fritz beats 8-0 to Kramnik to think that computers are clearly >>better that 2500 ????????????? :-) Yes Actually!;) It won't happen either:o) >> >>Best Regards! >> >>Tanya Deborah. >> >>Regards, >> Terry >>> >>>What's "Barbaric Ignorance" is posting trolls like this to make a pathetic >>>attempt to flame people who know a hell of alot more than you ever will! >>> >>>So when you watch Kramnik Fry Fritz, then what will you say? Of course Kramnik >>>is 2800 and has plenty of time to prepare so you'll say "Of course he won it was >>>unfair for the computer!":o)) >>> >>>TM > >P.S. Best >>computers programs play definitely at 2600-2650 elo level. Why people can´t >>understant it?????? > >There is _not_ enough evidence that computers can play consistenly at the 2650 >level, as a matter of fact Gulko helped to show that! > >Only Deeper Blue would I credit with a 2650 to 2700 rating. Common Belief: When a Computer programs win against Strong GM, then GM doesnt know how to play a computer. When a GM beats a Computer, "See how GM trashes chess programs?" When a computer program beats GM, then "GM didnt have enough experience playing that perticular chess program", oh yeah! and the chess program knows this GM bone to bone. When a computer program doesnt "understand" a position, "see this program doesnt even understand this position, how can you even compare them with GMs?" When GMs makes the most unthinkable mistake, which a patzer would recongnize, then we say. "Oh, he was just tired." I guess Tanya was right, we need to see a match where Fritz beats hell out of Kramnik (8-0), to say that chess programs are stronger than we give credit to them for. Then again, we might come with other excuses. (ie, kasparov lost to DB because he was going through a personal crisis, no wait, someone beind the curtain who happens to be a group of strong GM was making some move. But again the moves those were too good was made by those Gm and the other moves which were below average standard, where made by the computer.) Excuses excuses! pavs;)
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.