Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:46:52 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 09:28:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 03, 1999 at 08:47:54, odell hall wrote: > >>On October 03, 1999 at 05:28:21, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>>Now that Rebel has won Finally agiast a GM which is what I have been waiting for >>>I have a question, or more of a query really. >>> >>>In the past comments have been made that no program is of GM standard and even >>>if a prgram does win, in some people eyes this means very little in the overall >>>scheme of programs being better. >>> >>>But with this game, even though a win is a win. Did Rebel just clearly out play >>>the GM or was it a GM stuff up and Rebel was Lucky and took advantage of this >>>stuff up. Having no idea how this GM plays I wonder from comments made in the >>>past how far this bring computer chess. >>> >>>Was Rebel was in a good chance of winning from the start or was it a case of "I >>>know we are weaker and hope that the GM stuffs up and we take advantage of this >>>and win." >>> >>>This is just a post to give more opinions, not a swipe at Rebel, I have Rebel >>>and is one of my two favorite programs and from past posts I have wrote you >>>should know that I want it to win. This is just me making conversation on an >>>obsevation that was made in the past. >>> >>>Again Congrate's Rebel and Ed and Team. >> >> >> Well the thing that I have noticed, is that whenever a Computer wins a game >>from a human it is always some kind of excuse, too much noise, Grandmaster >>wasn't concentrating, time control, got up on the wrong side of the bed, >>whatever! I think we forget that people lose games because of a mistakes, if >>there was no mistakes made then everygame would be a draw, so to say that the >>grandmaster loss because of a mistake is saying very little. I was analyzing the >>Game with a Master pal of mine, and it took the master a few seconds to see the >>move Rxd7, This makes me think that the move h6 was a strategical decision by >>the grandmaster , I doubt that he overlooked Rxd7. > > >what _I_ have noticed is the _same_ thing from _you_. When the computer loses, >you accuse the GMs of cheating. When the computer wins, you yell and stomp >and say "see, I told you computers were GM players". One of us has a serious >problem. It isn't me. > >My feet are solidly on the ground. > >Rebel won. There was never a doubt that it would win a game. The question is >how many will it win? The gm played a line that was solidly busted. My opening >books say ?? for that line. But he went down it and got ripped. > >However, as far as computers playing at GM level, notice that to obtain a GM >norm, you have to do _much_ better than what has happened so far. A string of >draws and one win won't cut it. > >We need more games. Please control yourself, as you look silly with your >flip-flopping back and forth. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool >than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.. that is good advice for all >of us. Because we will have enough games to make some sort of conclusion before >long. All the crowing and ranting isn't going to change a thing... > >IMHO. I agree. It is important to keep our prospective during this match, and not let the highs from a win, or the lows from a loss skew our judgment. Rebels did win a nice game, and has performed well in the match so for, but this latest win is nothing more then another data point. It does not settle the debate of, do pc chess programs play at a GM level at tournament time controls...
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.