Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:31:28 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 17:52:47, Reynolds Takata wrote: > 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, No; it was mashed to a pulp. Anand scored THREE TIMES as many points as Rebel did!!!!! >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), I don't believe there was a single computer that faced only GMs. And it is possible to achieve a GM norm if you beat enough IMs. >and lastly a reported Fritz in disguise winning a 40/2 tournament >blowing away a GM. Sokolov recently blew away Kasparov at Wijk aan Zee, and he is 150 points lower. Freak results happen all the time, like J. Polgar's recent loss to a 2350. >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 Give your evidence for this. What I see above does not hold water.... >(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. If you program a computer to have nerves, fatigue, and off days I will take this as a legitimate complaint. We put up with our inherent weaknesses, let them put up with theirs. >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. Refer to my above comment. >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 >eaning >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. The loser will say anything. Kasp obviously thought that it wasn't that important when he agreed to play the match. :) >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. I don't follow your argument here... > 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 Look into my eyes........ :) >by the rhetoric of people who want to save >face rather than acknowldege the evidence. I do not understand what you mean by "save face", since you present no evidence that contradicts my views. > >R. Takata >USCF Life Master >Fide Master >Lover of Chess I will believe that comps are GM strength when I see a comp win a match against one. James
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.