Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 14:52:47 01/30/99
The truth of the matter is that a Chess program beat an I.M(Dean Hergott) in a 40/2 match, further there are other strong IM's that have been beaten similarly in matches just ask Amir Ban. These defeats were carried out on mere P200s. We have P450s now(probably overclockable on top of it). We have a a micro holding Anand 2700+ to a draw, and almost holding him in the other game. We have comps having 2600+ performance ratings against GM's at 40/2 at Aegon(again on slower comps), and lastly a reported Fritz in disguise winning a 40/2 tournament blowing away a GM. In fact In a 6 game match, I doubt there is a legit 2500-2550 GM in the world, that would dominate any of the top 3 micros in 40/2. In fact the likelyhood is that a great many GM's would lose the match probably in convincing fashion(especially with the provision, that the operator is allowed to prepare a specific opeining book against each opponent, just as GM's prepare for their own competition). We have GM's and IM's both, saying that the latest comps are GM strength. Of course there are a few dissenters(and that number is dropping), of those dissenters(GM's), i'm sure when they are asked how they would dominate the top comps running on P450s i'm sure the noise would be deafeningly silent(though there might be a few holdouts with some excuse). Something that is quite often left out of these discussions is that GM's have the distinct advantage of knowing far, far more about their opponent when it is a comp as opposed to when it is a human. So if a comp loses, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't play at GM strength it may simply mean that it was at a greater disadvantage than most other players. This because the opponent had more knowledge about the comp than he/she would have about a human opponent. Kasparov himself made a arguement in direct relationship to this, only in reverse. Kasparov argued that he was at a distinct disadvantage against Deep Blue, because he claimed that deep blue had been prepared for him. This meaning the comp knew good lines to play against him specifically, how to perhaps aim for types of positions, that in the past Kasp hasn't been best at etc. While he had no information(or at least not much), about the strengths and weaknesses of Deep Blue. He was playing against as he put it (Unknown Entity). At the time that line fell upon mostly deaf ears. Comps are in the same situation frequently there opponent knows about them, yet they know nothing of the opponent. Thus don't taylor their play against the opponent. This is called Gamesmanship. When Kasparov loses a game it doesn't mean he wasn't playing GM strength. All it means is that his opponent through pure chessic ideas and gamesmanship beat him. When comps lose, it doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't playing GM strength either. Comps are equal to GM's in overall ability (this of course not meaning that they are positionally equal, but when their tactical superiority is added to their positional strength, as a whole then indeed yes relatively equal an GM strength. So in pure chessic terms GM strength in Gamesmanship no. Evem despite this lack of gamesmanship comps hold their own with GMs. If you honestly think that a lesser GM(2500) playing Rebel 10 in a 40/2 match say 6 games would win on his pure chessic abilities(meaning coming in without knowing the opponent, after all that's what the comp is doing. Then indeed you have been hypnotized by the rhetoric of people who want to save face rather than acknowldege the evidence. R. Takata USCF Life Master Fide Master Lover of Chess
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.