Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 23:24:53 08/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 1998 at 01:02:28, blass uri wrote: > >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. I still don't know what you are trying to say > >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. No it wont give a higher result, if the program plays at 2400, then it will have a rating of 2400. The human 2400 that gets sick an plays will lose rating points and not be 2400 but 23xx. > >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.