Author: Robert Ericsson
Date: 06:51:17 04/23/99
I've just read an article on Rebel's home page about SSDF, comp-comp and comp-human results. There seem to be two statements made out of this article: 1) comp-comp tournaments (for instance SSDF games) can be tweaked with different/special opening books. At least that's what the comp-human people argues. >> SSDF's list is not 'showing the truth' 2) comp-human tournaments are better as they will give a true FIDE-ELO where the programs have performed (good or bad) against humans in OTB (over the board) tournaments. >> More 'accurate' ELO list But hey, wait a minute!? Why is statement 2 so much better then 1? In comp-human tournaments the computer will always benefit from the fact that humans always make minor tactical misjudgements/blunders during a game and the computer will not. Why not a computer vs cc player (correspondence chess player) tournament? The humans can check for blunders with a computer themselves, leaving us with a game where the computer's skill of planning will be tested against the cc player's skill of planning. I do understand that it will be very difficult to come up with such tournaments (how many cc players will have the time to compete?) but it must be worth a test!? Maybe 'advanced chess' tournaments with time control more then 40 moves in 2 hours can be worth considering? Maybe 40 moves in 4 hours? These are just mere suggestions. Feel free to join the discussion :-)
This page took 0.01 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.