Author: Roy Brunjes
Date: 17:02:27 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 19:52:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 03, 2003 at 19:49:28, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 03, 2003 at 19:41:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 03, 2003 at 19:33:55, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On February 03, 2003 at 19:05:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 03, 2003 at 18:54:54, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>...how is it that they now consistently play at the 2700-2800 level? Against >>>>>>Kramnik (2810), against Bareev (2729), and now against Kasparov (2807), a >>>>>>program is turning in a 2807 performance and very much _holding its own_ >>>>>>Calling any modern program a 2500 player is akin to calling the above mentioned >>>>>>super GM's 2500 players. >>>>>>It also looks to me as though the SSDF list is getting closer to the reality of >>>>>>the true state of program prowess than (admittedly) it use to be. >>>>>>Any comments welcome. >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>Peter >>>>> >>>>>A pity that you do not read. Show events are NOT a possible tool to calculate >>>>>the strength. And hard competition doesn't exist. That's it. I still hold >>>>>that comps are 2400 at best in fierce tournament chess. >>>> >>>>All top chess tournaments are show events, so is every superbowl match, in fact >>>>every sport with spectators is a show event. You can't conclude from this that >>>>what you are seeing is not real. >>> >>>You mix up what I said. Ok, if you want with spectators call it show event. But >>>that was not what I meant. If you define all as show then we must find two new >>>definitions for shows like now and simuls for instance and a term for fierce >>>tournament chess! What I said was connected to real tournament chess WITH >>>participation of comps. Hope this helps. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>Okay I get it, I would like to see a broader range of opponents too but I don't >>think DJ would perform _worse_ under those conditions. >> >>In this "show event" Kasparov and co. can focus on one single opponent entirely, >> prepare each game optimally. >>From game to game Kasparov will know more and more of his opponent, finding its >>weaknesses. That should be an advantage for Kasparov, not the DJ team that, >>according to the rules, can only change the opening book. >> >>-S. > > >Yes. Of course. Alas, the mean computer experts have invented the 6 games >"matches" and that is too short to exploit and harvest. Let them play 48 games >with the same machine of course. Promissed? > >:) > >Rolf Tueschen I think the computer chess public (not sure how small that population really is in comparison to, say, soccer fans) would love to see a 48 game match. I feel certain that I will never see it though. The fatigue factor would be just too great or the match would take place over 6 or more months to allow the human sufficient rest time. I doubt any super GM would submit to such torture unless the prize fund were really huge (like 10 times greater than what these guys are playing for recently). I just don't see any company coming up with that kind of money for such a match. I would love to be proved wrong on this, but I doubt I will be. Roy
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.