Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:38:28 10/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 16:11:23, blass uri wrote: >On October 15, 1999 at 16:00:08, James Robertson wrote: > >>On October 15, 1999 at 15:38:11, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:25:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:08:59, odell hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 13:25:17, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Anyone have the scoop on this re-match? Watching the one game on the rebel page >>>>>>>but how are the other three games unfolding? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Rebel won 1 game, lost 2, and drew 1. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately a very disapointing result for Rebel, I bet your real happy! I >>>>>don't know what these two losses mean , since the I'ms are very strong and >>>>>capable of beating any grandmaster on any given day. >>>> >>>> >>>>_I_ happen to be pulling for the computer in every game. But I am realistic >>>>in my expectations of the outcome. This result wasn't bad. 1.5 vs 2.5 for >>>>4 IM players in 4 40/2hr games is not a bad result. It is right in line with >>>>what I would expect/hope for myself. 2-2 would have been very good. >>> >>>Honestly Bob, >>>This is a disappointing performance by Rebel. Considering it's past performance >>>vs GMs/IMs. But it also is to be expected. Human IM's/GM's also have bad >>>results occasionally. Only the overall performance is what matters. In that >>>respect it is still doing very good. I think we should not lose sight of the >>>fact that this type of "Challenge" will show the computers in the worst >possible light. >> >>Why? >> >>>There can be no doubt that computers playing in a 4 round swill style >>>system or even in a round robin tournament would do much better than what we >>>will see in this format. It will not give us the "Rating" we are looking for >>>unless the worst case rating is what you're trying to establish. >>>Jim Walker >> >>I disagree. It does not seem obvious to me that Rebel would do better in a >>tournament, and there is no evidence to suggest this. >> >>James > >The simple fact is that in a tournament the players are not prepared only >against one player. > >There is another reason to assume Rebel would do better in a tournament > >The reason is very simple: >the level in chess is not transitive. > >GM can be better than an IM >IM can be better than a computer >and the computer can be better than the first GM. > >The first GM knows that Rebel is better than him(her) so (s)he is not going to >play against Rebel in this situation. > >(s)he may play in a tournament when rebel is only one of 10 players (s)he is >going to play. > >Uri I think this is way over-rated here. Because "rebel" after the first GM game is not the same as "rebel" before the second GM game. Rebel is a moving target since it is being changed every week, just like crafty. They can't really prepare a lot based on prior games. IE I would be perfectly happy playing the _same_ GM one game per week for a year. And would expect to do just as well as if I played 52 games in one tournament vs 52 different GM players. It isn't easy to prepare vs a 'development' program. If he was playing a released version of rebel that couldn't be changed, that would be a _big_ advantage. But that isn't happening here...
This page took 0.01 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.