Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 11:03:38 02/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>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.
That apparently is not a difficult thing to do. Further all of these postings
that you are making that don't contribute to the subject, but attempt to point
out something i have said that you personally don't understand are getting to be
ridiculous. Further these post stating you don't like something i have said are
getting to be ridiculous and need to stop. If you have a problem with something
i have said report it to the administration. Other than that you are just
taking up space.
>
>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.
James has no point because my post has nothing to do with his subject of
excuses. My post is about a demonstration of not drawing illogical conclusions
from the evidence that might be gleaned from a match between H7 and a GM.
>
>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?".
So what? This is a ridiculous thing for you to say, my post is about not
drawing illogical conclusions from the match. It has nothing to do with opinion
whatsoever. It is simply not logical to make a claim that the comp losing the
match alone means it's not a GM.
The match is indicative of strength, regardless of outcome, but
>is not proof of strength. Therefore, any claims in any direction are merely
>opinions
Opinions do not have to be excuses. Secondly my post is about not forming
illogical opinions based upon either winning or losing alone, it is not about
having excuses. I posted here to bring about more careful thought among the
membership of this group when they do come to conclusions about the match. It
has nothing to do with anyone personally making EXCUSES to defend their
ego(generally that's what an excuse is for), about an opinion they actually
believe is wrong, yet still want to maintain(excuse).
>
>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.
I'm trying to have a civil toungue with you. You are not my friend and you do
not know me, or what my attitude or emotion is about the subjects discussed in
this group. Further your opinions about the tone of my writings is off topic,
if you don't like it report it to the administration. On top of this every
posting that you have written has been way off base, and it is you who need to
get a clue, and a day job. Why? Apparently as you have stated time and time
again you don't understand, and further you have endless time to waste on
pointless abd most frequently faulty rhetoric that has nothing to do with the
group but about opinions you have drawn concerning the perona of individuals in
the group. So once again if you have some problem with what i say or the way i
say it, report it to the administration. This especially because i certainly
will not waste a moment reporting you if this continues.
R. Takata
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.