Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:39:31 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 09:52:41, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 22:02:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 29, 1999 at 20:21:44, Matt Frank wrote: >> >> >> >>think realistically. The DB guys have more experience than any commercial >>programmer by a _wide_ margin. Murray Campbell was working on computer chess >>in the 1970's... for example... Don't underestimate their skills when >>comparing them to commercial programs... they are _not_ behind at all, quite >>the contrary. > >> >>and no micro has come close to beating a kasparov in tournament play with a >>million dollar prize on the line. Nor can one come close today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >This seems to be the heart of your problem! Every time you talk about >Microcomputers not competing with GM's you mention Kasparov! First, I don't have a 'problem'. I mention Kasparov because DB _did_ beat hime. Yet I can find _no_ match of any kind vs a GM, at 40/2hr time controls, where the computer came even close to winning. If computers were close to, or at GM strength, this would not be true. I have absolutely no doubt that computers are at 'super-GM' level in blitz games. And I am fairly sure that at game/30 and similar rapid-type time controls, computers are 'right in there' based on results I and others have had at these time controls in legitimate tournaments (albiet with no cash prizes for motivation, which _does_ make a difference). But at 40/2hr, _nobody_ has beat a GM of any kind, _except_ for DB, which didn't just beat _any_ GM, they beat the GM that is arguably the best chess player in the world today. _that_ is why I mention Kasparov. Not becuase I think micros should be playing him, but because DB _did_ play him and win. > Very few people >who know computers think Micro's can compete with GK. I can give you a list of >GM's with FIDE RATINGS in the 2400's and a couple in the 2300 range. If you >think these guys would be saved by the little GM after their name your are >wrong. These guys would lose to a 2600 micro just like any other 2400 player. there is _no_ 2600 micro. So that point is moot. A GM isn't going to be 2300 unless he is fairly old. The first requirement is 2500 FIDE, then he has to make the three norms while maintaining that rating... >So why isn't this competing on a GM level? The truth is they are already >competing with the lower rated GM's right now. You will have a hard time >getting one of them to let you prove it at his expense! Right now, GM's all the >way up to Anand and GK are taking computers seriously for the first time. Like >you I've watched the computers move up in the ranks. When the first micros >played in tournaments the "B" players were laughing at them. Pretty soon it was >not funny to the "B" players and it was the "A" players turn. Now the GM's are >nervous. It's getting harder to find GM's willing to put their prestige on the >line even for money. Anand said never agian! > >I don't think they could beat any GM in a match at 40/2hr at present, although >they would>likely win some games... >and this _particularly_ evident when the GM is >>'computer savvy' and knows how to 'play the machine' which is becoming more >>common... > > >Why pick the GM's that are computer savy? Why not the average GM on the street? easy... because _any_ GM will become 'computer savvy' given the motivation. They _are_ very strong chess players. And would have to problem learning how to exploit unique computer weaknesses. But they have been playing one way for so long, they continue to try it against computers and then the machines do have a chance from time to time, where someone that knows how to play the machine can just stifle it mercilously. I've seen it happen many times. Even in blitz. > Why not the lower rated GM's first? Just as you had to beat the "B" players >before you got to the "A" players. Your point is always -since they cant beat >the best GM's or the ones that are computer savy then they are not playing at a >GM level. But today you slipped up and said "any GM". Wrong! >Regards, >Jim Walker Simply show me the results, and I'll certainly change my mind. Two years ago I said this for game/30 too. I found out different because I watched 4 computers and 4 GMs play a round-robin (Crafty/Ferret were two of the computers) and I saw _every_ computer finish with a higher score than _any_ GM (ie the final standings had 4 computers followed by 4 GMs). But I haven't seen that at 40/2hr yet. I saw Anand just squeeze rebel around the throat until it died. Yes anand is right at the top of the GM list. But Ed chose to play him, so we have to use the few games we have. That pair of games showed that computers just don't play at that level by a wide margin. They may find a neat tactical shot, but they will get rousted positionally...
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.