Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 18:03:38 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 20:31:28, James Robertson wrote: >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!!!!! If you would care to make note dear boy, when i said held anand to a draw, i wasn't reffering to the whole match(otherwise it would have only made since to say Rebel won!), Rebel 10 did indeed draw Anand in a 40/2 match. > >>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. Rebel did face GM's and performed like a GM that is not in question. > >>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. > You want to speak of evidence, where is the evidence that this is a freak result? >>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.... You can go ask any GM if they do as mentioned above You know i think i will just go get your last lame post and show how bad you are at arguing > >>(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.