Author: odell hall
Date: 13:48:16 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 15:11:52, Albert Silver wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 14:59:47, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 10, 1998 at 14:50:07, Reynolds Takata wrote: >> >>>Is I.M. Kaufman, and the recent CCC poll on Comp strength the definitive word on >>>whether comps are GM strength? I was just wondering because it AMAZES me that >>>after so much debate on the subject that an International Chess Master states in >>>"Computer Chess Web Reports" that he believes that a program "Mchess 8.1" would >>>be able to acquire the 3 grandmaster norms in 40/2 tournaments to acquire the GM >>>title, and that almost no one in the group commented on it. It's stunning this >>>silence, especially since most CCC members will probably expect other programs I don't think Kaufman would have made such a statement unless it was bases on his personal expierences. Who would be more capable of recognizing Granmaster play, other than a international master who has had tons of expeience playing grandmasters and losing to them. I am a A player and can easily recognize expert level players very easily, first of all I know that there are no B players that can defeat me four out of six games. Perhaps there may be one or two but it would be very rare. If I am getting beat by that ratio than I know the player is either a expert or a master! I believe Kaufman has much, much moreweight than any programmer concerning the strength of programs. To program a chess computer one needs very little knowledge of chess. People mistakenly believe that programmers are more qualified to comment on matters of chess strength than Masters , I think this is rediculous.such >>>(i.e. Rebel10, Fritz, Hiarcs etc.) to be stronger than Mchess. Of course I know >>>it's not definitive but does this mean that the tide is turning hard against the >>>ney sayers? >>Well, it's an opinion. Of course, he knows a lot more about the game of chess >>than I do. So his chess opinion has expert weight. But until it is tested, I >>think it is nothing more than an opinion. If Gary Kasparov said that chess >>program was a GM, that also would be an opinion. Granted, an expert one, >>but certainly not a proof of anything. >> >>>Yes i know you might be able to find some other titled players to >>>counter, though I don't know if they know as much about comp chess as Kaufman. >>>Also every time i have asked titled players (5 players) on ICC if Comps could >>>get the norms at 40/2 they all said yes. Though some didn't think comps could >>>stand up to a lot of GM's in a match but they thought a tournament situation was >>>different. Though after watching R10 draw anand in a 40/2 game i'm not certain >>>even of that. >>The statement of an expert player is not a demonstration of anything but an >>opinion. Without some mathematics to back it up, it is nothing more than >>conjecture. Lots of people feel that computers now have the equivalent strenght >>of a GM. Lots of people feel that computers are a long way off. Does an IM >>statement change anything? Not at all. Mathematical testing will change >>things, if it does happen. But since FIDE is loathe to allow computers to play, >>we may *never* find out. > >I remember reading as a child "The Snoopy Compendium" (or something like that) >in which Snoopy sets off to participate in the World Arm-Wrestling >Championships, but after some tribulations returns home reporting that he had >been disqualified for the rules stated something akin to "both participants >shall grip their hands and place their thumbs..." and it ended there. As Snoopy >explained: He had no thumbs. I somehow suspect that if it really comes down to >it, FIDE might very well point to some rule and automatically proclaim that the >potential silicon opponents are thus ineligible. > > Albert Silver > >> >>>Reynolds Takata >>>USCF Life Master >>>Fide Master >>> >>> >>> >>>"The last time I checked, the indicated adjustment to convert to USCF >>>ratings was 180, which would give it a predicted USCF rating of 2696. Even a >>>tiny gain would bring the new version over >>>2700, the same level as the top four or five American grandmasters. This is at >>>standard tournament speed (40/2); at fast >>>chess the programs are stronger still. Although I suspect that the method used >>>to get the Swedish ratings tends to exaggerate >>>the ratings of the top programs a bit for several reasons, >>> >>>I do believe that MChess Pro 8.0 would be able to earn the >>>Grandmaster title if given a reasonable number of opportunities to play in GM >>>norm tournaments. >>> >>> >>>In fact, an earlier version >>>(5.0) defeated three Grandmasters in a single six round event (Aegon) at >>>standard time controls. At fast chess, it is a terror;" (Kaufman Nov, 1998)
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.