Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:24:36 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 1999 at 18:49:03, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On April 30, 1999 at 17:35:10, Phil Dixon wrote: > >>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 :) > > >More evidence, more evidence, more evidence. The actual point of fact is, that >Human so called critic experts, will never in this world recognize the best >programs for there achievements, until they are allowed to play in sanctioned >Sgm tournaments and beat the hell out of them, which they bloody well mayme be >capable of right now. > >There are always to many execuses, "too much noise in the hall", so this result >does not is discounted . Etc etc etc. Humans are imbred with huge ego's and will >not/cannot face reality when it is staring them right in the face. > >The most compelling reason for acceptance is that the strongest player in this >planent has degreed "the micro's play at 2600+ strength" If he can see it, then >the rest of you so called negative thinking morons can take your ego's and pound >sand, The rest of us don"t need to hear from you about it anymore. ! This is the same person who accuses IBM of fraud. Just because he is a world champion doesn't mean that all of his opinions are correct. (Fischer, anyone?) Whether computers are GM strength or not is completely testable, there is no reason it can't be tested for if sufficient resources (time, money) is put into doing so. Undoubtedly, they will shortly become GM strength if they haven't already reached it. Decreeing that they have done so will not change the real uncertainty of the proposition, however. "Negative thinking morons"? "Take your ego's and pound sand"? You might consider getting less worked up about the topic in the future. "The rest of us don't need to hear from you about it anymore!" is rather over the top. This is a discussion forum: if you don't want to be exposed to other people's points of view, you could choose not to read the bulletin board. Dave
This page took 0.02 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.