Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 11:03:07 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 11:07:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 05:07:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 25, 2002 at 03:38:11, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2002 at 18:34:18, BORIS YUDOVIN wrote: >>> >>>>Please answer my question. >>>>If Fritz 8 play against different people with Elo rating >>>>2200-2300 (corresp.chess ) what result can we expect. >>>>(score %).Amount of games 500. >>>>Thank You.Boris >>> >>> >>>If you play against correspondence chess players of 2200-2300, >>>there is a big chance you play Fritz, Shredder, Tiger, Rebel, >>>or another chess program :-). >>> >>>Jeroen >> >>I think that this is mainly the case with higher rated correspondence players. >>I believe that most 2200-2300 correspondence players or not use a computer or >>use programs only for a short time. >> >>I expect top programs to get 80% against 2200-2300 correspondence players. >> >>The match of Steve Ham against computers when Steve Ham(2508 ICCF) lost 2.5-1.5 >>proved that programs can get a correspondence performance of more than 2500. >> >>Steve Ham did not play anti computer but most correspondence players do not try >>to play in anti-computer style and if you say that the correspondence players >>cannot use hardware for 24 hours per move in every game then I can answer that >>today it is possible to use better hardware then the hardware that was used >>against Steve Ham. >> >>My experience in correspondence games also suggest that computers can get >>performance of more than 2500(I used also my head because performance of more >>than 2500 was not enough for me to be the Israeli champion) >> >>Uri > >Most 2200-2300 corr games i see are 100% computer moves Uri. > >That you 'can' get higher with a computer doesn't say anything >about reality here. > >Another thing where i have to laugh loud for always is that all >correspondence chess players who are themselves rated pretty low, >that they conclude that a certain program X is best program. > >The reason behind this is that they suck so much that they usually >go for the biggest patzer move. So if they use more than 1 engine >to analyze with, then what happens is they play the minimum strength >of the both engines, resulting obviously in worse play than simply >using 1 engine and giving it 24 hours of computing time. > >However the strong world top corr players i know, they all distrust >the computer completely. These are rated obviously way higher than >2200-2300, and their own rating OTB rating is not always saying >something about how strong they play their corr games. > >Analytical insight, systematic analysis, and taking time at the right >moment are the bottom lines. > >No computer has a chance against them. Some are rated 'only' 2400 >which obviously means that playing with a computer only is not garantueeing >a high rating anymore in 2002. It wasn't from 1997 Like so many vistors here thought I only used diferent programs for my analyses. While in all analyses there was much of work from my side. For you it are only moves for me it is the result of much work. It is also for this reason why chessprograms of today don't always find the corect route to the win. Many times they draw or even loose from the starting position when out of book. with the position which with the best play would be winning. If i see this today I close the chessprogram and I start playing a diferent game. Like age of Empires2 Or Serious Sam at least he is Serious hehe. While in the past I broke my brain to refind the solutions. Ofcourse once in a while I still do because I don't want to loose my gift! Regards Marc van Hal
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.