Author: walter irvin
Date: 05:24:41 10/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 16:56:45, odell hall wrote: >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. > > > Friend, I am always chilly, But do me a favor and explain to me what other >implications I can get from these Remarks by Dr. Hyaat... > > "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.." > > > Even if he did not call me a fool directly, the implications were clear and no >less insulting, So I suggest you tell Him to take the chill pill, and not >express himself so strongly. Ofcourse in this newsgroup some people are beyond >reproach and others get all the flak and critisim. my advice is not to tangle with mr. hyaat , its hard to win against him for several reasons , the number 1 is the simple fact that he knows computer chess inside and out .plus because of fact #1 with out concrete facts in black and white ,if it comes down to a belief or such . people are going to believe him .
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.