Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 07:15:36 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:45:37, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 09:35:45, Martin Schubert wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 09:20:46, Chris Carson 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 do not care if they are or they are not GM's. I do care what ELO strength >>>they are. >>> >>The problem with the ELO is that there's the danger to compare things you can't >>compare. ELO is one number for chess between humans. Computers play totally >>different chess. So the ELO you get for a computer depends on what kind of games >>you play. If the players are experienced in playing computers. >>Of course if you let a top program play against players which are not very >>experienced playing against computers you'll get a good rating. You wouldn't get >>such a good rating when letting the program play against more experienced >>players. >>A lot of people are very interested in ELO. But it's just one number! You can't >>put every knowledge about chess just in one number. So IMO it's far more >>interesting to ask where can computers help the humans and where can't they >>instead of just looking at one number. >> >>Martin >> >> >>>Why not determine what the strength is now? I made a statement 2 years ago >>>about the strength on 500Mhz machines and was challenged to provide more than >>>one game to prove my point. I did that. >>> >>>Why is it so important to wait 5 years? >>> >>>If it is not important to you. Great, don't read the posts, I ignore a lot of >>>stuff on this board that is not important to me. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson > >That is a good point. > >ELO is the measure for performance. That is what I am talking about, that is >what I have always said. If you want to discuss something else such as "what >are the weakness of programs or program x" that is a good topic, adds >information, but is not part of the "are programs performaning at ELO 2600 or >higher level. > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson But the performance depends for example on you opposite, in the case of computers it depends on if a program plays (in anti-computer-chess) experienced players or not. So you can't answer the question "are programs performing at ELO 2600...". Of course you can answer this question for a specific tourament. But to draw conclusions from that is dangerous IMO. Regards, Martin
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.