Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:20:31 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 16:21:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 16:04:30, Chessfun wrote: > >>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. > >It seems as if the English could be disturbing the debate. But keep on with your >free-style comments. Very telling. Debate? never knew it was that but whatever. >As to the masters should define, I meant to keep out of it because I don't >understand why what should be allowed. See the actual event and its rules. > >Then your first point with the alleged taking away of knowledge, you should >explain. I see no take-away of knowledge if books are not allowed with data a >comp could never find. That is as if I would let play a human kid with GM >analysis written on paper or whatever. I want to forbide impostering in CC. You don't allow a computer to be given additional knowledge by it's programmers but allow naturally a human to gain knowledge over that period....makes no 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.