Author: Shaun Brewer
Date: 03:48:50 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 23:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Bob, I have been reading these posts and want to throw in my thoughts. The extisting Rebel10b seems to play most of the same moves that the new version plays. I belive it would be possible to do a fair amount of preparation against Rebel as the changes between versions is not dramatic, more than against a human opponent. Opening book preparation is more difficult, as who can know what would be in it? I love to see these computer v human games and wish to thank the Rebel company, they are brave to make these challenges and should be supported. Shaun
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.