Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:30:20 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 20:02:27, Roy Brunjes wrote: >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 Absolutely correct. It was not a real proposal, it was just an argumentto explain the underlying dimension. The importance of training. And the gambling character of 6 games only. Excuse my language. Rolf Tueschen
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.