Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 17:37:27 04/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 18:09:22, odell hall wrote: > >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. Remember that the Aegon event had a wide range of human players, from masters to Grandmasters. If you just count the encounters between the computers and GMs, you'll see that the GMs finished well ahead. (At G/90 no less!) > 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. Humans achieve the GM title in 40/2 tournaments. When computers are consistently scoring GM-level performances at 40/2 against multiple opponents, then I will agree with you. >We have dozens of both tournaments and matches between >computers and humans, yet somewhow this is not enough?? Dozens? Can you please list a few? I'm only interested in 40/2 encounters. > 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. You have shown that they are GM strength at rapid chess. I haven't seen any evidence that this holds true at 40/2. >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). I don't recall hearing about this match. Can you provide some details? >Do they have to achieve a grandmaster Norm? This was already done by Rebel, >Hiarcs, Chessmaster Fritz Twice!! Are you referring to Rebel's last Aegon performance? Not 40/2 games. As for Hiarcs, I assume you are referring to the Hergott match. A very impressive result. A few more matches like that would convince me, but one is not enough. As for Chessmaster, I have no idea what you are referring to. >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!! It seems to me that you are giving lots of examples from rapid-play events. Nobody is going to argue that computers aren't GM strength at G/30 or G/60. That is quite a bit faster than 40/2, and as we both know, faster time controls favor computers immensely. Remember that the FIDE rating list and the Grandmaster title is based on games played at 40/2. To my knowledge, there are very few documented 40/2 games between commercial programs and GrandMasters. Please, if you know of any, I would love to see them. The upcoming Hiarcs7-Yermolinksy match will provide us with some excellent data. Perhaps the new "Rebel Challenge" will too, though I notice that the time control for these games has not been announced. Let's hope it's 40/2. --Peter
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.