Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 01:31:20 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
I said below "Of course I know it's not definitive but does this mean that the tide is turning hard against the ney sayers?". That was the question, meaning the general concensus. As for math, I guess i only need to look at the CCC poll concerning the question to see which way the wind blows concerning the question. Indeed the majority of voting members here find in favor of GM strength of top progs. > >>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.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 <x> 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. > >>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.