Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:00:29 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1999 at 09:11:28, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: > Do you think preparing a month or more in advanced for a chessprogram could >really come near seeing a reflection of true strength? I think for a program to >have this high a rating (2480) after 10-12 games is amazing how many people here >feel they would have the same rating if everyone got to study and prepare >against you very minimum your dropping at least 100pts ever go into a lower >rated players pet line?? This is what it amounts to. (in my opinion) I never said that 2480 was good or bad. Only that so far is not a GM rating. After these 10 games, and saying that 10 games are not enough to know, I speculated that... etc. In fact, I am not even sure that this 2480 has the same meaning as it would have for a human player. People's strength is transitive, while in the case of programs it is not. An example: during the Kasparov-Short championship, Short's representative at the games broadcasted by the BBC used to explain the result as being predictable given the difference in Elo. This can not be done with chess programs, because of the intransitive quality I mentioned. So I don't really know if the system of Arpad Elo applies to programs in the same way it applies to human players. Again: what I posted was and is speculative, of course, but not of the kind "good or bad". Enrique
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.