Author: blass uri
Date: 13:06:40 07/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2000 at 15:26:43, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 14:38:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 28, 2000 at 07:55:55, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>Nice work. I had not done this for a while. >>>This seems to fit with what a lot of other people >>>have recommended in the past. SSDF is looking into >>>this, I think they have done a great job. >> >>A real solution to the problem would be to pay ten GM's to play ten matches of >>ten games each against the top ten programs. One thousand games provided in >>this way would be a real way to measure the true strength of chess programs. >> >>No other way is effective. > >And this way is not feasible, so it's not effective either. Besides, it would >give at best a new global calibration, but wouldn't tell us in the future if >ratings based on comp-comp are also valid for human-comp. Are they? The >anti-computer games of Frankfurt and Dortmund wouldn't have been helped by a >faster search I disagree. Junior could find Bh6 against piket if it has more time and in this case piket could not get the position that junior does not understand(in this case less time could also help Junior but I think that seeing deeper is more productive than counter productive). More time could probably also help Junior against kramnik because a few plies after Kh8 it could see a drop in the evaluation and these few plies include captures that are not quiet moves. Uri
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.