Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 06:35:07 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:17:18, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 09:06:42, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>Over the last month, there have been a number of such huge arguments. >>I've always thought that it's a bit strange to get hung up on this >>question. Five years ago, it was clear that the best micro programs >>were not at GM strength. And presumably if you wait five years, PC >>programs will have proven beyond any doubt that they are at GM strength. >>Surely the time we happen to be living in is the best and most enjoyable, >>because we're perhaps seeing a moment of transition between these positions. >>Why then the need to convince anybody of anything when you can just sit >>there and be proved right by waiting? Is there some particular benefit to >>being able to say that PC programs are GMs *now*? >> >>Andrew > >I don't think that the argument is beneficial, but there are some people there >are certain that prog's are gm strength, i myself is one of them and when people >say that prog's are only 2100 rated it provokes, especially when you look at DJ >2703 perf against the top human gm's, it would be the same as to say that a 2100 >player could acheive the same, in the same company. > >Regards >Jonas I don't understand the "2100" comments. I've heard people say that progs sometimes play like 2100-rated players, but I've heard that about human players too (eg watching ICC relays of human tournaments). However, I've not recently heard anyone claim that a modern program on modern hardware would be rated 2100. It seems to be a straw man which is used to continue the arguments. Andrew
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.