Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:53:38 01/29/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 00:28:28, Derek Paquette wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 00:14:11, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: > >>On January 29, 2006 at 22:09:58, Derek Paquette wrote: >> >>>Does anyone think it would be possible or on the horizon to see Rybka final >>>version playing a well known grandmaster, say 2700+ elo?? A 15 game match would >>>be nice...is this possible or am I dreaming. I personally think that Rybka >>>would do atleast 9.5-5.5 vs anyone in the world at this point, >>> >>>is the author of rybka considering this, no one doubts rybka would win, but by >>>how much (atleast i doubt anyone doubts it could beat anyone) >> >>Really?? I still think Top GMs like Topalov,kasparov,Anand can beat it. > >Kasparov couldn't beat Deep Blue II and that machine was made 9 years ago, he >couldn't beat fritz 8, junior 8 which are a hundred elo points lower than rybka, >and kramnik couldn't beat DF7, also, Bareev couldn't beat HIARCS 9 BAREEV, which >is weaker than hiarcs 9 and hiarcs 10. With super GM's historical track record >vs programs I certainly wouldn't bet on the humans. Aside from that, man vs >machine championships, both of them were disasterous for the humans, infact >there is no evidence a human can beat even a mid range program in a match >setting. (not a modern program) That is simply ignorant BS. Why do you make such silly assertions? Did you understand that Kasparov didn't try to win against DJ in the last game? Did you know Kasparov was winning, but asked for a draw? Your understanding of GM's appears non-existant. Kasparov when he wanted, beat Fritz in 2003, for the simple fact he had to win, after a blowing a win earlier. He blew the win due to the circumstances of the match, he had to wear that stupid 3-D head gear which was giving him headaches. He played better than any program, even when he lost. Did you notice he almost always had a win, even when though he failed to bring home the point. Uri is right, Kasparov didn't have the real interest to win, just put on a good show. He outplayed Deep Blue II but really screwed up in his last game. I wouldn't even count Game 6 as Kasparov fudged the move order. Game two he was troubled by Be4!! and tossed a draw...he didn't even check the perpetual check out. He gave Deep Blue II too much credit to Deep Blue IIs calculating abilitiy, and _assumed_ he was lost, when in fact he wasn't. It's sad to see him obtain wins and draws and let them slip. No question Kasparov was a better player than Deep Blue II, or any program. Take a look at George Tsavdaris's game against Rybka, he totally out played the program and won...he isn't a GM either, only an expert, yet he won regardless. Quite brilliantly, I might add. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?483225 So a GM can do much better, if he wants to! You misjudge Super GM strength. I've beaten top programs, and I'm not a GM. There are many examples of humans, GM and less, beating top programs. You always go by the final result in matches, without fully grasping the GM's play. You would think differently, if you knew why these top players lost or drew. You don't. Terry
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.