Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:24:21 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 15:02:51, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. > >Let's not forget that correspondence ratings are probably inflated a lot. >The best players at this specialty probably never played a single game. >For instance, I have no doubt in my mind that Kasparov will eat alive any >correspondence player by a huge margin. What would be the rating of Kasparov if >it decides to really go into it? 3000?. I do not think that it is going to be 3000. Remember that the facts that both sides use computers reduces significantly the advantage of kasparov. I guess that he is not going to be more than 100 elo higher than the best correspondence player and I doubt if he is going to be better than the best correspondence player. The players who play against kasparov may prefer to play for a draw and not to take risks and kasparov may have bigger problems to win games. 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.