Uri wrote:This match proves that Rybka 3 and a top GM are about equally strong, the top GM being slightly stronger i think. If the games were without odds for the GM, i believe the match would have ended with a 4-4 draw.
No basis for your words.
The facts are that milov played exactly 2 games with white and hardly got one draw in them.
Rybka proved herself to be clearly better in equal conditions.
You cn claim that the GM did not play well but the same happened also in previous match when rybka got 6 wins and 2 draws with black against another strong GM(not super GM but GM with almost rating of 2600) and it is something that normal 2700 player cannot do.
All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
Thanks Uri....I also don't understand,but they still do it and they don't provide any kind of proof,just empty and worthless statements....
Right Doc. Just like your statement (your prediction before the match) that the human will be crushed like a bug...
Worthless... as you say.
He likes to think he knows....He's not anywhere close to GM strength, but he believes he knows more about chess then them...
swami wrote:Near 3300 in some lists would seem exaggerated and meaningless, Imo.
Actually, Larry estimated that the engines with ~2700 rating on the lists are about right when compared to human ratings, but that engines above that strength are increasingly getting overrated due to ELO formula flaws or its implementation in the programs used to calculate them like ELOStat or Bayeselo (after enough games.)
Similarly, engines under the ~2700 rating are increasingly getting underrated, such as a 2500 rated engine would perform better than that against humans. I don't have exact figures or quotes but that was basically the idea.
The lists would then not be fixed by just subtracting 200 rating from them, something else needs to be done, but having computer rating lists that are equivalent to human rating lists seems possible.
Stop blaming elostat or bayesian elo, blame the user..start using a lower offset value.. Also, you could use a lower value for prior. I am sure H.G would disagree with you, he says that Bayesian is almost perfect.
Tony Thomas wrote:I am sure H.G would disagree with you, he says that Bayesian is almost perfect.
With me? I'm just cross-posting what lkaufman said because he doesn't post at his board and I think his opinion is relevant for the discussion. He claims that Bayeselo, as the rating lists use it (and that's what matters) asks too much for a strong engine to give it a high rating, so when a new strong engine enters the list, it will take a long while for it to not be underrated.
Uri wrote:This match proves that Rybka 3 and a top GM are about equally strong, the top GM being slightly stronger i think. If the games were without odds for the GM, i believe the match would have ended with a 4-4 draw.
No basis for your words.
The facts are that milov played exactly 2 games with white and hardly got one draw in them.
Rybka proved herself to be clearly better in equal conditions.
You cn claim that the GM did not play well but the same happened also in previous match when rybka got 6 wins and 2 draws with black against another strong GM(not super GM but GM with almost rating of 2600) and it is something that normal 2700 player cannot do.
All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
Thanks Uri....I also don't understand,but they still do it and they don't provide any kind of proof,just empty and worthless statements....
Right Doc. Just like your statement (your prediction before the match) that the human will be crushed like a bug...
Worthless... as you say.
He likes to think he knows....He's not anywhere close to GM strength, but he believes he knows more about chess then them...
If your GMs were capable of playing real chess,we wouldn't witness all the odd crap in the last years....
Remove your white rook and I'll move my black knight....circus,nothing more....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri wrote:This match proves that Rybka 3 and a top GM are about equally strong, the top GM being slightly stronger i think. If the games were without odds for the GM, i believe the match would have ended with a 4-4 draw.
No basis for your words.
The facts are that milov played exactly 2 games with white and hardly got one draw in them.
Rybka proved herself to be clearly better in equal conditions.
You cn claim that the GM did not play well but the same happened also in previous match when rybka got 6 wins and 2 draws with black against another strong GM(not super GM but GM with almost rating of 2600) and it is something that normal 2700 player cannot do.
All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
Thanks Uri....I also don't understand,but they still do it and they don't provide any kind of proof,just empty and worthless statements....
Right Doc. Just like your statement (your prediction before the match) that the human will be crushed like a bug...
Worthless... as you say.
I predicted that he'll be crushed like a bug if he played like a man....that's playing real chess....then I predict 5,5-0,5 for the hopeless human
Human GM strength my @ss regards,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Ovyron wrote:This is how a win against the computers should look like.
Too bad this isn't chess.
I dont want to get involved in this topic but since we have a broad group of innocence I like to inform the board that it's nothing wrong with the tradition in sports when the weaker player gets a higher handicap neutralization than a true champion. This is the same in golf as it's in chess. Already Wch genius Morphy gave some of his opponents a Pawn, move or even officer advantage, so that the game had any seriousness at all. Because apparently in chess like in Golf, also Go comes to mind, a "normal" game between a master and a weaker player is making not much sense. It's painful for the weaker and it's very uninteresting for a master.
But let me also state, that the conditions for the actual match/show/examination were more iontended to get a better clue of the actual relation of the different strengths of a human and a machine player in chess. Exactly because these special conditions the show had science value. Because it was NOT insinuating something into such an event that isnt there. For too long we had seen how a human player played yoyo with a dumb machine. And make no mistake! Even in this show right now the GM showed some positions a machine still doesnt know to handle well - meaning that it could try to exploit a seemingly weak human strategy. But it's only a matter of time and some improvements that also such "Father" tricks wont function anylonger.
I want to thank the young super GM and likewise IM Kaufman for his sensible handling of the event with a setting that allowed the human player to show where the abilities of a human player are still superior.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Uri Blass wrote:All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
When you say that programs significantly weaker than Rybka 3 could get draws with Kramnik and Kasparov, do you mean that they would lose more than draw?
Ovyron wrote:This is how a win against the computers should look like.
Too bad this isn't chess.
I dont want to get involved in this topic but since we have a broad group of innocence I like to inform the board that it's nothing wrong with the tradition in sports when the weaker player gets a higher handicap neutralization than a true champion. This is the same in golf as it's in chess. Already Wch genius Morphy gave some of his opponents a Pawn, move or even officer advantage, so that the game had any seriousness at all. Because apparently in chess like in Golf, also Go comes to mind, a "normal" game between a master and a weaker player is making not much sense. It's painful for the weaker and it's very uninteresting for a master.
Well,thanks you Prof.Rolf for showing us,the innocent and naive people the truth in our life path....thank you sir....
As I agree partly with your Morphy example,I would tell you that your statement lacks a lot of logic....why?simple....because Morphy was a genius,a champion of his time and he knew who is the weaker player and gives him the odd game,while in our case there are still people claiming that the human GMs,cough,are superior to the machines....so we need a series of matches playing standard chess so that we can draw the line of strength and finaly see who's Morphy and who's not....
But let me also state, that the conditions for the actual match/show/examination were more iontended to get a better clue of the actual relation of the different strengths of a human and a machine player in chess. Exactly because these special conditions the show had science value. Because it was NOT insinuating something into such an event that isnt there. For too long we had seen how a human player played yoyo with a dumb machine. And make no mistake! Even in this show right now the GM showed some positions a machine still doesnt know to handle well - meaning that it could try to exploit a seemingly weak human strategy. But it's only a matter of time and some improvements that also such "Father" tricks wont function anylonger.
I want to thank the young super GM and likewise IM Kaufman for his sensible handling of the event with a setting that allowed the human player to show where the abilities of a human player are still superior.
Sorry for the irony,but with which part of your body did you make the conclusion that Milov showed that the human player is still superior
I didn't notice anything remarkable unless a humble,hard achieved draw playing standard chess and the rest of the circus also doesn't show anything superior....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri Blass wrote:All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
When you say that programs significantly weaker than Rybka 3 could get draws with Kramnik and Kasparov, do you mean that they would lose more than draw?
No
I mean that they drew public match against kramnik and kasparov.
I can add that pocket Fritz(based on hiarcs12) achieved the GM norm
with performance close to 2700 recently.
Uri Blass wrote:All the evidence of the results suggest that computer programs are significantly stronger than humans and even programs that are significantly weaker than rybka on slower hardware could get draws with kramnik and kasparov but for some reason some people insist that human are still equal or better.
I do not understand why they do it.
Uri
When you say that programs significantly weaker than Rybka 3 could get draws with Kramnik and Kasparov, do you mean that they would lose more than draw?
No
I mean that they drew public match against kramnik and kasparov.
I can add that pocket Fritz(based on hiarcs12) achieved the GM norm
with performance close to 2700 recently.
Uri
Yes,the chess engines run on a PDA and wiped the floor with a group of GMs and IMs kicking their butts all around the playing hall....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
