Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:18:20 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 02:45:01, odell hall wrote:
>On February 17, 2000 at 23:32:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On February 17, 2000 at 18:33:20, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>The morbid fear of playing on against Deep Junior and the "true" result against
>>>super GM players shows that (I think) at G/60, a computer does play like a GM.
>>>Maybe even a super
>>
>>
>>3-4 years ago, I would have said "You are as full of crap as a Christmas
>>turkey..." But since then, I have greatly revised my opinion here. It
>>started when Crafty, Ferret, ChessMaster, and one other program played in
>>a round robin event on chess.net with 4 GM players. The time control was
>>not sudden death I don't think, but was 30 something where something was
>>very short (it _might_ have been 30 0, but I don't remember). In that
>>event, every computer played every GM. And at the end, all the computers
>>had better scores than the best GM. IE we owned the top 1/2 of the places,
>>the GMs owned the last 4 places.
>
>
>
> holy cow!!! Are we finally seeing some concessions from Robert Hyatt!!!
>Unbelievable!!! I do believe it is a cold day in hell!!
settle down. I have been saying computers can beat GM players at game/30 and
game/60 for _three years_ now. No new concessions at all (yet).
>>
>>After a few more such events that I personally played in, I became convinced
>>that at 30 0 and 60 0, GM players have _great_ difficulty. They do one of
>>two things: (a) the press too hard early to try and win before time becomes
>>an issue, and this usually fails; (b) they get low on time and then get badly
>>out-blitzed by the computer. I don't think computers can beat _ALL_ GM players
>>at that time control, because I know a couple that are _serious_ problems since
>>they understand computers very well. But most are going to roll over at 30 0
>>and 60 0.
>>
>>At longer time controls, particularly non-sudden-death time controls, time isn't
>>as much of an issue, and the game doesn't resolve into a blitz match which a GM
>>most likely can't win.
>>
>>We are probably seeing the "end" of the welcome-wagon for computers in human
>>chess, particularly at faster time controls.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I think that Amir and Shay should be justifiably proud of their effort. Any
>>>machine+program that can strike fear into the heart of a super-GM is an
>>>astonishing thing.
>>>
>>>I think that Adams is not to blame for any controversy. If I were a player, I
>>>would always push for any edge I could get, even with the arbitration committee.
>>
>>I have chatted with him a few times on ICC. He didn't seem like the type to
>>behave as he appeared to behave. I believe that KC was the _real_ problem here,
>>with no idea of how to manage such a tournament, no idea of how to anticipate
>>the problems and have written protocols ready to handle them, rather than resort
>>to a poorly-conceived knee-jerk reaction that made the entire KC enterprise look
>>like a bunch of amateurs.
>>
>>I begin to suspect Adams was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It
>>could have been _any_ GM on the other end and KC would have screwed this up just
>>as badly, unless both ends were GM players.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Any shame (and there is clearly some to go around) goes to the arbitration
>>>party.
>>>{purely}IMO-YMMV.
>>
>>
>>
>>At least to the person(s) responsible for a decision that was nothing short
>>of ridiculous.
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.