Author: blass uri
Date: 22:02:28 08/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1998 at 23:31:51, Shaun Graham wrote: >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. I agree but when we compute the rating of the human we calculate rating that is based also on the games he played when he was sick. The point is that the same difference in rating between computer programs will give a higher result for the better program because the better program is never sick. I also do not think if the difference in rating is 400 the player with the lower rating has no chance. I did 1 time in my life a draw with a human 400 ELO above me and I know a 2000 player who won against a grandmaster one game. (The grandmaster falled into a trap the 2000 player planned at home). Uri > 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.