Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 00:02:58 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 1999 at 09:37:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On September 18, 1999 at 17:44:11, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>By the way, the Rebel Century Performance Rating for the match today was: >> >> 2553 << >>which is certainly in the range of Grandmaster ratings. > >Rebel's TPR so far is roughly 2480, which is not GM level. Ten games are not >enough to know much, but taking into consideration that Rebel is the program >that scored the best in Aegon over the years, this tpr seems to indicate that >programs do not reach GM level yet at slow time controls and against motivated >GMs. One more thing: considering that Rebel played these games with a hardware >much faster than a P200MMX, it seems clear that the SSDF list is quite inflated, >maybe by some 150 point Are you the same Enrique that have played computerchess, for the last 20 years!? How can you be so sure after 10-12 games! If only one or two of the games went another way should it have proven that Rebel was of GM-strength. We can take the games for Fritz5 and use them and we have 2600+ something or CM6000 about 2600 or maybe ShredderX one game 2600 or maybe Hiarcs4 on P200MMX about 2500 or Hiarcs6 about 2600 in south-america. Rebel8 played two GM´s in Sweden One win one draw, shall we use this for a guess?. Is this Rebel-challenge the only valid rating-basis? The match favor the GM´s also, they can prepare for the opponent and it´s never any problem with the time-controls for the GM´s, as is the case in a face to face match. Once I played Rebel9 against Gandalf3 after 7 games Rebel9 was up 7-0. 8 games later the score was 7,5-7,5. Mr Szub is also sure that Junior4.6 is better then Junior5. He knows that after studying its style and a few games. I guess that he can be wrong this time. The list should be correlated to the reality but we need a better base then feelings and guesses. I guess that the base of the list is to high but is it 50 or maybe 250 points, it´s always fun to speculate! Regards Bertil SSDF >I think that someone has been saying all this for years. Hi Bob! :) > >Looking at the few 40/2 games played so far by programs against strong human >opponents, I wonder if results wouldn't be similar if played against 2300 >people. The positional superiority of a 2300 player is still immense, and for >them it might be a matter of avoiding tactics, as wise IMs and GMs do when >playing computer programs. Maybe the Elo system works differently for programs? > >Aside form this, I don't think it makes sense to use the same opening book in >comp-comp and in human-comp games. It is quite absurd to play openings that lead >to positional games, where programs are quite dumb, and this is happening too >often. Is it not a better idea to build a gambit-like book that tries to open >the game and play tactics? Same for playing style. A program can afford to play >the Orthodox against another program, because neither will understand a thing, >but against a strong human player it's a mistake. Look, for instance, at Rebel-2 >yesterday. > >Enrique
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.