Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:40:08 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 1999 at 23:35:12, Robert Hyatt 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. 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 don't know what you mean "past performance between GM/IM". There _isn't_ >any "past performance" at 40/2. we now have maybe 12 games total, counting >the GM games plus the 8 games in these two matches? Aegon doesn't count as >that isn't 40/2... Of course I was referring to the few games played before this match. In those few games Rebel had done very well in my opinion. There was no mention of Aegon. > >As far as the difference between playing in a planned game and playing at a >tournament, don't think a GM will not plan on playing you if he knows you are >coming. And don't think he won't be studying for you if he sees he is paired >with you in the next round. You are right of course, but the point is a GM must also prepare for many other people and this divides his preparation time accordingly. He also may not take the computer too seriously since he may or may not play against it. :-) > >I doubt the rating 'floor' of match play will be significantly different from >the 'ceiling' obtained in random tournament play. I've done both many times >with Cray Blitz and Crafty. And I didn't notice any particular difference >myself. They simply prepare very well no matter what. This is your opinion and I respect your opinion since it comes from many years of experience in this area. However I still believe there will be a difference and even if after 100 games it is only 25 points, it is still something. I don't think we should ignore this possibility. Regards, Jim Walker
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.