Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 20:31:51 08/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1998 at 22:13:55, blass uri wrote: > >On August 03, 1998 at 15:39:47, Shaun Graham wrote: > >> >>> >>>However, the "standard" still applies... If you *assume* all programs are 2400 >>>and one is a "killer"... then *that* program is going to be 2800+ very quickly, >> >> >>Robert i think you are just trying to argue again:), because if there was a >>program so "killer" that it could defeat all top programs all the time, then it >>would be 2800! > >I do not agree because I think the difference of 400 ELO between computers >is not the same as between humans. > >For example a good human player can lose a game against a weaker opponent >because he did not feel well. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but i'll take a stab. The point you seem to be missing here, is that a sick human rated 2400, is not playing at 2400 strength. When we say a human is 2400 what we mean is that his average performance equals 2400. If there was a computer or even a human that could beat all top programs 100% of the time they would be 2800 or even more. Kasparov can't beat all top programs 100% of the time
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.