Author: Phil Dixon
Date: 14:35:10 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 17:14:36, odell hall wrote: > >On April 30, 1999 at 15:54:40, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On April 30, 1999 at 15:31:47, odell hall wrote: >> >>>Hi CCC >>> >>> I am sure we all Miss Dr. Hyatt (I know I do!). However I think that it is >>>very convient for Dr. Hyatt to disappear! now that computers are proving in >>>front of the world that they are Grandmasters!! (Beating a 2673 at game\60 over >>>several games is not an IM Performance!!) It seems now he doesn't have explain >>>how it is possible for a so-called "weak International Master" ( Hyatts >>>Acessment of Top Programs) to Defeat a Fide Elo 2677 in a match at faster than >>>action chess time controls. In my view If fritz is capable of Beating A super >>>grandmaster at game\60 which is a reasonably long game, then no doubt it is >>>grandmaster strength. Ofcourse there is more than this isolated match to come >>>to this conclusion, kasparov himself said in his recent speech in the united >>>states that micro programs are now over 2600! Ofcourse We have many >>>international masters and Grandmasters saying the same things, including Larry >>>Kaufman. It is now starting to look very silly for anyone to say otherwise, >>>those that maintain this viewpoint will no doubt lose credibility in the eyes of >>>the computer chess public. >> >>Actually, I will be the first one to step up and look silly. >> >>From your post, you indicated one match and the opinions of several GMs for your >>conclusion. This response is based solely on the information in your post. >> >>Although your conclusion is based on the opinions of several GMs, it is not >>based on enough evidence to be conclusive. It is still an opinion. >> >>Without further data, basing it on one match between a computer and a 2600+ GM >>is irresponsible. Anand just came in a three way tie for 8th place in a major >>tournament with 10 superGM level players. I would not make the conclusion that >>Anand is no longer the second or third best player in the world based on this >>one tournament. >> >>You have no idea whether Judit was fatigued, ill, trying to prove that she could >>match tactics with the computer, OR the computer is GM strength at G30 and G60. >>Your "evidence" is faulty. >> >>This also does not show whether a computer is GM strength at standard tournament >>times. >> >>So, all in all, although the evidence that programs are at or approaching GM >>strength is mounting, it is not conclusive evidence quite yet (or at least the >>evidence in your post is not sufficient). >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >Well Let me ask you two things? First What would you define as evidence? >Secondly How many grandmasters Must fritz beat before you would consider it to >be a grandmaster? The Problem is as long As computers are not allowed to >participate in Fide Events and Achieve legitamate norms There will never Be any >"evidence". But this doesn't stop me from using good common sense, If one >consistenly beats grandmasters then one is a grandmaster! Show me a >international master on the face of the planet that could beat Judit Polgar in a >match under any conditions or circumstances? If you take the performance of top >programs as a whole they have more than proven themselves to be grandmaster >strength. You speak as if there is no evidence , when there is overwelming >evidence. Humans in order to get the GM title need only 3 Grandmaster norms!!! > This means basically that they only have to achieve a grandmaster performance >in three tournaments, to get the title. ONLY three tournaments!! I don't think >even the most skeptical person if they are honest with themselves would deny >fritz5 could easily achieve a grandmaster Norm if allowed to compete. Ok let me >list some Evidence 1. Hiarcs Defeat of 2485 elo rated Deen Hergott in a six >game match 2. Rebel winning of both Samuel Cups I and II in 1997 -1998 over >Several International masters with over a 2600 Performance rating!! 3.Numerous >indivisual encounters between computers and grandmasters at 40/2 where the >computer was the victor 4. Rebel Annand match 5. Matches Played at 40/2 between >Crafty and Grandmaster Larry Christian Crafty won. 5. Fritz5 Defeats 2577 elo >Judith polgar (game\60, Game\30. The Strongest Player in the History of the >Game says they are 2600! This all means nothing??? >Oh I forgot to mention the outstanding Perforances of computers at the Aegon >tournament With Mchess and Rebel with performances ratings over 2600el0. >No doubt I am leaving alot out!! When you have all these results and people are >still having doubts, this makes me wonder what people are looking for. yet a >human only has to score three norms to be considered a GM. No doubt had all the >above events been Qualified by Fide as Norms, Computers would have earned the >title long ago. Could you show me a human international master that could >achieve any of the above? I ask you again, if this is not suffient evidence >than what would be? Does programs have to Grow wings and then Fly to Heaven and >Beat God? Perhaps then you would still say there is no evidence! I think computers are VERY strong, but I have to agree with the other gentlemen that there is a need for more evidence and especially to get ALL the facts regarding the match in question. Phil :)
This page took 0.01 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.