Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Micro Milestones vs Humans

Author: blass uri

Date: 03:59:55 07/22/98

Go up one level in this thread



On July 22, 1998 at 05:58:31, Mark Young wrote:

>On July 22, 1998 at 04:47:09, Howard Exner wrote:
>
>>On July 22, 1998 at 04:08:45, Mark Young wrote:
>>
>>>On July 22, 1998 at 03:48:48, Howard Exner wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 22, 1998 at 02:59:55, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the milestone in Rebel vs Anand?
>>>>
>>>>3-1 victory in blitz match with an almost 2800 rated player.
>>>>1.5-.5 victory in a game/15 match ...
>>>>>
>>>>>bruce
>>>>
>>>>Is the use of the word milestone the hurdle here?
>>>>
>>>>Remember, my post included this sentence:
>>>>
>>>>Maybe milestones is too strong a word but some kind of site would be
>>>>nice that would showcase the accomplishments of the many programmers in this
>>>>area of computer chess.
>>>>
>>>>I hoped that I made the intention clear by citing a few examples.
>>>>Here are the other ones:
>>>>
>>>>Crafty winning a state championship
>>>>Genius beating Kasparov in game/30
>>>>Listing the first micro to beat a GM
>>>>The net tournament of game/30 where the computers did so well.
>>>>(Wasn't Ferret part of that computer group?)
>>>>
>>>>Are the few examples I've given not worthy candidates of accomplishments
>>>>made by chess programs?
>>>>If Rebel-Anand isn't noteworthy which of the above are?
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't looking for some rigid test that the programs had to pass
>>>>to be included. For example, I think an accomplishment would be
>>>>citing some of the current ICC computer ratings. Put in an historical
>>>>perspective that to me is quite an achievement.
>>>
>>>Right now Rebel 10's results are just that very good results. But nothing that
>>>is a milestone.
>>
>>I've re-read my original post and while I used the catchy phrase
>>"micro milestone" in the header, I clarified the intent of the post by
>>words, "accomplishments" and "showcase".
>>
>>
>> This kind of results is my book is not to unexpected.
>>
>>Because of the fast time control it may not be that unexpected for some,
>>but still it should make the hi-light reels.
>>And while, like yourself I refer to this as an accomplishment, it may well be
>>a milestone for others.
>>
>>I can't recall another pre
>>arranged match with an Anand-like player getting defeated in blitz. Sure, other
>>programs could have done it if given the chance but the fact remains they
>>haven't. Hey, I think I've just talked myself into thinking it is a milestone :)
>>
>When Chess Genius played Kasparov that was a knock out match and the time
>control was longer and the computer was slower. So It has been done before. If
>my memory is correct it beat Kasparov and Topalov scoring 3.5 out of 4 at game
>30 before falling to Anand.

I remember it did not beat Topalov but beated Nikolich

Uri
So if you mean by an "Anand-like" player as being in
>the top 10 or so of the best players in the world then I think Kasparov and
>Topalov both fit this.
>
>>Unfortunately, the emphasis on my original thread was put on the single
>>word "milestone", and I fear my original thread's intent will get misunderstood
>>and die a slow death. Aw, poor me ;(
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now if you
>>>want a milestone maybe the 40 move in 2 hour games with Anand will give us one.



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.