Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:10:50 03/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 1999 at 11:47:35, James Robertson wrote: [snip] >I agree that the sample space is small, but it is not _that_ small. The odds of >getting 6-0 for flipping a coin is 2 ^ 6, or 1 in 64. But in chess we have >draws; 3 ^ 6 is 1 in 729, or 0.13%. And at the GM level I would wager that draws >occur more than 1/3 of the time between evenly rating players. > >Even though the ratings are uneven, they change the odds only tiny amount; For >instance, Yermolinsky should win 0.679% of the points, since he is 130 points >higher (assuming Hiarcs 7 is 2500). That increases the odds he will win all 6 >games by less than 1/2 of a percent. I think this sort of match is intrigueing for a number of reasons. For instance, I think matches of computers against humans of high caliber are so rare it is very difficult to get a grip on how good programs really are. I also think that computers combined strength may really be near 2500 for the top programs. But that is probably tactical ability near 2800 and strategic ability of 2000. I think the secret to a sweep for Yermolinsky would be to avoid any mistakes and play strategic formations along with closed positions. I have often underestimated the ability of computers. I think a match like this will be incredibly interesting as an inkling of how good the programs really are. The speed chess things that have gone on before play directly to the computer's strength and tell us nothing that we did not already know. While they are intensely interesting, they can't hold a candle to this. Getting a GM of this magnitude to play at tournament time controls is a bolt out of the blue. The organizers should get the newspapers, chess magazines, radio, and television stations involved. This is boat-rocking, earth-shaking, mind-numbing, eye-popping news!
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.