Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:07:02 08/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1999 at 00:28:25, odell hall wrote: >On August 27, 1999 at 00:09:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 26, 1999 at 21:34:13, odell hall wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 1999 at 14:01:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 26, 1999 at 12:55:01, odell hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 26, 1999 at 10:36:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 26, 1999 at 08:41:37, odell hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 26, 1999 at 07:32:06, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 26, 1999 at 02:21:39, odell hall wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If anyone is interested in how crafty would do against Grandmaster Atopkian do >>>>>>>>>a Search Crafty Vagr on icc. After these Games were played I asked Akopian What >>>>>>>>>happened surprised that he lost. He said he was experimenting with some opening. >>>>>>>>>However he admitted that he could not beat crafty and claimed this fact as the >>>>>>>>>reason he played it so few games. Ofcourse these were all blitz games. Akopian >>>>>>>>>said that playing the computers at 40/2 would not be interesting for him because >>>>>>>>>they would be no challenge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think Akopian is plain wrong on this matter. Playing the best programs at 40/2 >>>>>>>>is already a challenge even to the very best human players in the world, and >>>>>>>>Akopian is hardly in that league (Kasparov, Anand, Kramminik, etc., etc.). FIDE >>>>>>>>Championship, these days, is a display of physical will and blitz wizardy. It >>>>>>>>has little to do with top level chess. >>>>>>>>I'd love to see a tournament involving the greatest human and the better >>>>>>>>computers, round robin, $500.000 to 1st place. Matters should be more clear, >>>>>>>>them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Cláudio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While I do believe programs are low GM Strength I don't think any program out >>>>>>>there could defeat a 2600 Grandmaster like akopian at 40/2 in a match. I don't >>>>>>>think one has to be garry kasparov , or annand to beat the best micros at long >>>>>>>time controls. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You had better be careful... you are beginning to sound a lot like me. >>>>>> >>>>>>:) >>>>> >>>>> No Bob I have never maintained that Computers are 2600 strength. I do believe >>>>>they are between 2500-2540, ofcourse this is a long way from where you stand, I >>>>>believe you said they are around the low 2400's. In view of all the recent 40/2 >>>>>games I doubt you still have such a low opionion of programs. >>>> >>>> >>>>I have been fairly consistent saying 2450 is what I would peg as the upper bound >>>>of today's programs... >>>> >>>>lets see, estimated TPR so far would be roughly 2200+2600+2600 (one loss, >>>>rating-400, two draws, generously giving the opponents 2600 ratings). That >>>>turns out to be 7400/3 which is 2466. Right in line with my speculation, >>>>wouldn't you say? >>> >>> >>> >>> This May sound good, but there is only one major problem, You are >>>conviently ignoring the results at the WCCC99 Where Fritz5 beat Sokolov along >>>with the draws against 2600+ players, I bet if you factor in these number that >>>2466 will disappear. Even if you were correct how can you make a elo claim >>>based on three games, I am sure you know this is not accurate. COme on Bob Let >>>go of the pride and admitt that computers are much better than you originally >>>thought. You yourself admitted that Rebel's results so far are very good. >> >> >>(1) you can't cherry pick. IE you can't pick a tournament where fritz does >>well and use that, and ignore one where it gets torn up. I am using Rebel as >>a reference point, because I am just taking _every_ game in Ed's GM challenge, >>and not counting others. >> >>Count them if you want, of course... but if you pick the right events, you >>can prove anything you want... It's been done before... >> >>(2) you can use 3 games to produce a 'performance rating'. That is what it is >>all about. And yes, I think 2466 is a very good result for Rebel. It is a bit >>better than I expected... and is no disgrace at all. > > > I am not cherry picking, The whole question is how strong computers are >today?, this means collectively not a single program. It would not be correct to >take the results of one program and then make a judgement of them all. The only >way to me is to take the results of all the programs together. With your formula >you ignore 40/2 games as if they did not happen or are meaningless, this can't >be the correct way. I have no problem if you will take _every_ 40/2 game that was played under tournament conditions. IE no 'matches' that were played in someone's home or such... no matches played in outdoor settings, or in a noisy exhibition hall at a conference, etc... I don't think there are a lot of such games... but for those that exist, let's take _all_ of the games in each tournament where such games were played, _not_ just the games against GMs in those tournaments... and lets see where the programs line up. So, 40 moves in 2 hours (or slower of course as some GM games used to use 45/2.5 time controls). If you want to include a program (Fritz for example) then we include _all_ 40/2 games Fritz has played vs humans... However, I consider the Rebel games _much_ more important, because here the GM player is preparing to play a computer. In regular tournaments, I doubt the GMs give much thought to the computer until they find they are paired against the thing... I am only against the approach: "Hey, in tournament XYZ, 1998, Fritz played 2 GM players and drew both. Let's use those." But overlooking the fact that in that same tournament, it _lost_ to two 2300 players... That is what I mean by "cherry picking"...
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.