Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 09:12:18 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 03:24:36, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 No I will continue to read the bulletin board, and make my comments as i see fit, I have never said anything before negative here, Never. I have a right to say what I feel, and what I feel is, what I have already said ! As far as the best chess player in the world expressing his view point of the big match, he has that right. Does that mean he is less of a champion ? No, of course not. Does that degrade his understanding of chess ? No of course not. Does that invalidate his input on the micro's ? No of course not. Fischer ?, he is the biggest cry baby of all time in the chess Kingdom, I dont wanna hear about him either !
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.