Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:11:44 11/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 1998 at 13:17:13, Eric Adolph wrote: > >On the other, >>other hand, the gap between the very top players like Anand and Kasparov and a >>2500 GM is probably as great as the gap between a PII 450 Mhz and Deep Blue. >>Many orders of magnitude, in other words. > >But didn't Rebel 10 beat the crap out of Anand? If so, it seems it would have a >good chance vs. Kasparov too, and Kasparov didn't lose to Deep Blue that badly, >except in the last game. So, how big could the difference between Deep Blue and >Rebel 10 really be? (playing strength, not "speed"). Rebel 10 did incredibly better than I ever imagined. But I mean at tournament time controls. I am not a fan of speed chess. I like 40/2 or even slower. So at slower time controls, with only two games, Anand did better, but I would certainly like to have seen a lot of slow games instead of fast ones. There is a problem, though of perception (perhaps). For Anand, if he loses a bunch of games at slow time controls, it really looks bad. And for Rebel, if it plays at slow controls, *most likely* it would not fare nearly as well. I would have been astonished at a 10 point match won 7.5 - 2.5 by Anand -- for Rebel's performance. Such a result would really mean that personal computers are incredibly powerful at chess. But the public probably would not recognize that. They would see it as a loss. Yet I would consider a performance like that even more astonishing than the advantage Rebel had by doing speed games. If Anand has a bad day and goes 5:5 in a match like that, it would really look bad for him. So I thing GM's will be loathe to play slow time control games like that, as are the manufacturers. But that is the *real* gague of strength in my view. The showing of Rebel in that match did make me rethink my view of personal computers playing chess. I was one of the ones who thought it would be a blowout for Anand. What Ed has achieved is something rather incredible, I think. Just how far personal computers have progressed, I don't really think we know yet, because GM's don't play them in tournaments and that is the very way to find out how strong they are. I'd like to see more things like the Harvard Cup and Aegeon.
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.