Author: odell hall
Date: 15:09:22 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 17:39:07, Peter Kappler 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. > > >The time controls is the key to this debate. > >My understanding is that half of the games were played at G/60 and the other >half were at G/30. This is a far cry from 40/2, which I'm sure is the time >control that Bob Hyatt refers to when he states that computers aren't GM >strength. (Nobody would argue, for instance, that comps aren't GM strength at >blitz chess!) > >Also, this is only one match against one GM. It's an impressive result, but >remember that Judit Polgar is probably the most agressive, tactically-oriented >Super-GM in the world today. (Veselin Topalov and Alexei Shirov also come to >mind). Her style plays right into the primar strength of a computer. Things >would be different against a positional player like Karpov, Salov, or Seirawan. > >My view is this - it's obvious that at G/60 or faster, the micros play at GM or >super-GM strength. At 40/2, it's not as clear - there are simply not enough >games to draw a firm conclusion. My guess is that they are nearly GM strength, >and that the result of a given match would likely depend on how well the GM can >implement an "anti-computer" style. > >--Peter Hi Peter Your statements are well said and Objective, But in all honestly I think this is part of the problem, Many are going out of their way trying to be objective and are ignoring evidence that is right in front of their eyes. I keep hearing over and over that their is not enough games played?? We have over three years of aegon tournaments Game\90 15sec for each move. As well as several matches played between computers and humans, What confuses me is that humans need only three GM norms to get the Title. Yet when computer do what amounts to the same thing, it is ignored. We have dozens of both tournaments and matches between computers and humans, yet somewhow this is not enough?? This goes back to my question to kardad, what would be considered evidence in your eyes? What does a computer have to do to be considered GM Strength. I think I have already shown that collectively computers have already Achieved Grandmaster Norms. Ok do they have to win a match against a GM at slow time?? This was already done (Mchess6 defeated a Grandmaster in a six game match at Game\90 I forget his name). Do they have to achieve a grandmaster Norm? This was already done by Rebel, Hiarcs, Chessmaster Fritz Twice!! In fact Every tournament that I know of that computers were allowed to particate they have achieved Fide performance ratings over 2500! Ofcourse Most people ignore this, and keep crying for more games, and when more games are given then they cry for even more and forget the ones they have!!
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.