Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:31:31 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
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? I didn't call you a fool. I quoted a well-known proverb that certainly seemed to apply... go back and look at your posts on the subject over the last couple of months. You'll see what I mean. > 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. That is where we differ. I don't _know_ much yet about this issue. My own experience, skill, judgement, computer chess knowledge, information from GM players that I know well, all suggest that computers are not GMs yet. I have said many times that it is _possible_ that I am wrong. But that I choose to wait for sufficient data to make up my mind. I am waiting on the data. So far, the data is mixed. Rebel has played outstandingly. Whether it is a GM class player will be discovered over the next few months... > 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. Utter poppycock. You said "I won't take these games seriously since the GM was at a different location from Rebel..." (paraphrased). You were taken to task for it by several people. Don't try to back-pedal and say you didn't say that... >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. Just re-read your post on the subject. What you say you said, and what you actually said, are _far_ apart in important details... You _directly_ implied that the GM was cheating or could be cheating... no mistake in the implication. Because I didn't even comment on it until after several others pointed out your 'change' of position. > 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 You first said that computers were GMs. Then that the games couldn't be trusted and you weren't going to pay any more attention to them because there was no way to be sure that the GMs weren't getting help. Then after a Rebel win, off you go on the 'computers are GMs' again. And you don't see any flip-flopping in your stance? :) >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!!! _I_ didn't say that. I have pointed out on several occasions that FIDE did pass a resolution allowing computers to participate. You are mixing me up with someone else... The original deep thought won a fredkin prize stage II, for producing a TPR of over 2550 over 24 consecutive games against GM competition. We _know_ it played at GM performance levels as a result. We only have 4 or 5 (depending how you count) games for Rebel so far. Just hide and watch, and before long there won't need to be any discussion. We will have real data, real numbers, and a factual answer not based on opinion... All it takes is some time.
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.