Author: Don Dailey
Date: 09:40:37 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
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.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? 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. > >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) Is Larry Kaufman the definitive word on whether computers are Grandmaster strength yet? YES, almost. You don't know this guy the way I do. Although everyone is fallible, I would have a hard time pointing to a more reliable source than this to answer this question. Larry knows computer chess like the back of his hand. He knows the problems and weaknesses but he also is a strong player although he is not a Grandmaster. His opinion on this will be better than almost any grandmaster opinion. Why do I make this ludicrous statement? Because it doesn't have as much to do with strength as it does to objectivity and rational thinking. Larry is king in this regard and knows ALL the facts and is not prone to making hasty or biased judgements. I don't think he has a biased bone in his body! He is simply a clear rational thinker and is ultimately qualified to evaluate chess programs. So if Larry said this, I wouldn't bet against it, unless you just want to throw your money away, in which case you can just send it to me and save yourself the hassle! - Don
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.