Author: James Robertson
Date: 11:42:43 08/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1999 at 11:32:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 27, 1999 at 01:28:41, Dave Gomboc 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 thought that your intent was to pick all of the 40/2 games starting with the >>first game of the Rebel GM challenge. This would then include the 3 games Rebel >>has played so far, along with the 5 games at Paderborn. >> >>Dave > > >I'm not sure what you mean "5 games at paderborn"??? > >Bob 5 games from the GM - top 5 finishers at the WCCC match. Jmaes
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.