Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:40:37 02/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 1999 at 04:40:06, Reynolds Takata wrote:
>On February 04, 1999 at 20:37:03, James T. Walker wrote:
>
>>On February 04, 1999 at 18:30:00, Reynolds Takata wrote:
>>>Say that Hiarcs is actually ELO 2550 strength, and he plays GM 2585 ELO. The
>>>2585 defeats H7 in a 6 game match by 3.5 to 2.5. or even less. Well firstly i
>>>would hope that no one would start claiming that the prog isn't GM strength
>>>because it lost. If it's only 2550 it's supposed to lose. If H7 wins, well
>>>that speaks for itself :). I believe also if the comp achieved merely the score
>>>above it would have a relative provisional of 2518, and perhaps that would speak
>>>a little something as well.
>>
>>I see the problem a little differently I guess. The thing is, no matter which
>>side you are on, you can start making your excuses right now. There are too
>>many variables.
>>
>>1. It's not the real H7 since it was specially prepared.
>>2. The GM had too much time to find weaknesses.
>>3. The GM didn't play it straight up (He played h3 and took it out of book .
>>4. The hardware was not the best/fastest available.
>>5. H7 was not properly prepared by the operator.
>>6. One match does not prove anything.
>>7. The GM is very informed about computer weaknesses.
>>8. The GM did not take advantage of the computer weakness.
>>9. Add your own excuses, you've got 5 months !
>>:>) )<:
>>Jim Walker
>
>
>Well you actually don't see the problem at all.
>The thing here is that this the statement here made above is not an excuse but
>actual point of fact. If Kasparov was a computer and he played a match for the
>first time and lost, then a lot of people here would start saying he was not a
>GM. Well the point i made is that, you can still make that claim, but it's not
>legitimate to say not a GM based upon losing a match alone. After all in the
>70s both Larsen and Taimanov lost matches 6 0, yet no one would say they are not
>GM's. I resent you attempting to cheapen the statement i made as an excuse.
Yet again Reynolds, you have lost me.
Jame's point is that regardless of which side of the fence you are on, the
sample set is too small, regardless of the outcome. Therefore, anything stated
now or within the next 5 months has little meaning as does the actual results of
the contest.
Your first statement was that if the GM beat the computer by 3.5 to 2.5, then
you would hope that nobody would claim that the computer isn't GM strength. Fair
enough. You made a factual statement. But the entire point in response to that
is "so what?". The match is indicative of strength, regardless of outcome, but
is not proof of strength. Therefore, any claims in any direction are merely
opinions (or excuses if your opinion appears to be on the losing side after the
fact) and nothing more.
That's all.
Why is it that everytime someone doesn't agree with you or has a different
opinion, you get bent out of shape ("I resent you attempting to cheapen...")?
Get a clue. You have GOT to give up your day job. Try taking up chess.
Smile a little, your face won't crack :) On second thought, smile a lot :) :)
KarinsDad
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.