Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 17:48:28 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 10:25:14, Derek Paquette wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 01:53:38, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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? >actually kasparov stated that he felt that vs a human he could go for the win, >but for a program he wasn't confident he could make all the necessary moves >error-free to pulloff the win. Partly true, but his real problem was not to lose, DB2 was still haunting him and he commented on this. Too bad, as he would have won. DJ was going to play a fatal mistake, and DJs GM consultant told the team, take the draw and they did. Too bad. > > >> >>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. > >2003 and 2006 programs are not even in the same league, rybka is far far ahead >of fritz 3d. > Well this is a bit of an exaggeration, anyway, even Rybka can't understand that type of positional chess. It's good, very good, but not that good!:o) > >> >>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. > >Now your guessing, I admit I used to guess at these things aswell. But in-order >to debate something you have to look at historical evidence and program >strength, not guesses as to the "TRUE" feelings of the super grandmasters My main point, Kasparov played stronger, and he did, yet he failed to win the match. > >> >>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. >> >but these are all human related weaknesses, mistakes are part of the human game >(not so much the programs), you can't say that the ONLY reason the human lost is >because of 'said' mistake, nono. >that IS a human trait, something the machines take advantage of, even if it >isn't a conscious advantage for the machines. Had Kasparov been prepared, been properly advised, and practised, would he have lost? No, I don't think so. Remember, he _never_ prepared, he didn't take it seriously, beating DB only 14 months earlier, by 4-2! > > > >>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. > >This is another opinion, lets stick with historical facts, he didn't beat it, >for x and y reasons, but regardless, his human frailties came through. Yeah, well no GM plays an opponent in the dark, but Kasparov did. The odds favoured IBM, for the first time. There was never going to be a next time. > >>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. > >If he played on ICC or chessbase server infront of everyone, I congradulate him >on his single victory, if he posted it on this board and said he did it at home, > has to be a live audience watching. That's too bad, as that implies he may have cheated. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I congratulated him. > > >> >>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. >> > >Everyone says they can beat this and that program, lets schedule a specific day >at a specific time and have you play rybka infront of everyone at any time >control you wish, I bet my savings that you would lose. That's a risky proposal. If I did nothing but play Rybka for a year, the odds of me winning go waaaaay up! Right now, anything could happen. > > >>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 > >assumptions based on match payouts are NOT ENOUGH to come to a conclusion about >a GM's motive. You can't simple look at a situation, see how you would react >and say the GM did the same. You can't, its ignorant. You say I am spouting >BS, I'm going by historical results, your going by how you FEEL the gm's >reacted, > >whose more bs. Excuse me, I was talking on the strength of play! Kasparov's play was better, and by more than a class in some cases. Still, he only drew. Hell, he outplayed DB2 in certain games and only got draws, bad luck to a point, and preperation. I know he didn't prepare. He was busy with other matters, politics etc. 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.