Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Onya Rebel, Question for Ed and others

Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo

Date: 14:07:41 10/03/99

Go up one level in this thread


On October 03, 1999 at 15:20:55, Havergal Brian wrote:

>On October 03, 1999 at 11:23:42, odell hall wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>  First of all Dr. hyatt you surpise me with the tone of your post, which I
>>think is uncalled for, I have a right to express an opinion without being called
>>a fool don't I? The question whatever or not computers are grandmasters is
>>highly debatable and because I think they are grandmasters is no cause to be
>>labeled a fool. I would not expect such vebal abuse from a person of your
>>stature. By the way The computers clearly are performing at above 2500 elo based
>>on the games we have so far, so it is looking more like you are the one that was
>>wrong (or a fool) not me. Secondly you convienently attribute statements to me
>>that I did not make, in order to make your own argument look good. I never ever
>>accused any grandmaster of cheating, I would like you produce the Post where I
>>did. I said that the Rebel challenge has some flaws because the games cannot be
>>guarenteed to be without foulplay. For instance, uring yesterday's game infact
>>an adminstrator repeatedly warned several people not to kib because the players
>>could see the kibs!!!  On this alone a player could benefit without neccessarily
>>having a intention to cheat.  As a scientist surely you would want to make sure
>>that the conditions of your experiment is error free?? or else you cannot trust
>>the conclusions you draw from that experiment.  I was only pointing out the
>>possible problems, this is far from accusing someone of cheating, and I resent
>>that implication. Lastly when have I been going "back and forth"??? You are
>>confusing me with someoneelse, When did I say computers are not grandmasters?
>>and then change my mind and say that they are???  Where are you getting this
>>from?? In fact I have been consistent of the issue the whole time.  Yes I was
>>happy with rebel's result, Which is very natural, everyone likes it when some of
>>their conclusions seem to be correct. Keep in mind however that my former post
>>Proclaims that "computers" not just rebel are grandmasters.  If this seems silly
>>to you, sorry but the available facts disagree with you.  Finally as far as
>>computers getting norms to achieve  grandmaster status, this is a silly
>>observation because you know that not even deepblue could achieve a grandmaster
>>norm because they will never allow computers to compete with humans and achieve
>>norms in tournaments, so useing that line of reasoning computers will never be
>>grandmasters!!! And you can never be wrong!!!
>
>
>
>Unless I read Dr. Hyatt's comments incorrectly, he did not call you fool.  At
>least not directly... ;-)
>I would suggest finding out for yourself just how much is required to gain the
>elusive GM title.  One must do very well in several tournaments against GM
>competition.  Oh, and take a chill pill.  That advice comes free of charge.

If someone commented to me about looking silly and better to be thought a
fool... YOU bet i'd Know they called me a fool plain and simple.
  would you enjoy the same exact response to one of your posts??
Please lets be reasonable here, the post wasnt to me yet i read the same thing
in it and if I did Im sure others did as well.



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.