Author: Chessfun
Date: 13:04:30 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 11:35:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 07:46:48, Joachim Rang 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. >>> >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>you are the only one... a pity that YOU don't read: >> >>http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=160 >> >>Quote: >> >>Discussing this with ChessBase director and computer chess guru Frederic >>Friedel, we surmise that today's top programs play consistently at a 2500-2600 >>level of chess quality. The difference is that they instantly and mercilessly >>punish every human mistake and almost never let a winning position slip. This >>near-elimination of the margin for error pushes their practical performance up >>toward the 2800 level. > >You are correct. I didn't know that quote. Thank you. > >But please consider that Fred is no longer on science but on heavy business and >money. I know for sure that we would understand if I could explain what I meant. >Most people don't read - what is meant - but only what they can decrypt with >their spectacles. But that is sufficient for the opticians but not for Rolf. > >I will try it in shortcut mode. > >I hold the following theory: > >1.) Human tournament chess rules! >2.) identity of chess programs! >3.) high recompensation if humans beat chess programs! >4.) in a defined period of time, say half a year, the progs are forbidden to be >changed; new games into book are allowed, techno bugs are allowed to be >corrected; but the chess system of the engine version jan-june is constant; >books are allowed but without lines no computer ever could solve actually; >tables must be discussed by the nasters themselves and possibly forbidden and >reduced or such! >Now my thesis: Under these defined conditions progs would decrease in strength >(Elo performance) down to 2400 the average. Max. at 2500! Interesting as 1 and 3 are already pretty current and 2 is only IMO a marginal difference. 4 now here is an interesting one, how do you take away knowledge gained by the masters in much the same way as you intend to do with a PC program. Also what about learning, allowed?. Then let the "nasters" sic, decide whether PC's can play with tablebases, wonder what the answer would be lol. >Now let me know what you think. Also let me know please if Fred said something >out of his new McDonalds for freaks where you can eat Hamburgers for over 40 >dollars each... Frederic owns a McDonalds?, gotta love his business sense. Sarah.
This page took 0.02 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.