Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:15:52 05/01/99
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. 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!! So where is the evidence? GMs get norms at 40/2. Check out the software programs' records against GMs and IMs at 40/2, not G/60, or G/90 + inc. What is the result? I happen to think that the best programs are GM strength, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly. Dave Gomboc
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.