Author: Graham Laight
Date: 11:01:43 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 10:00:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>We firmly believe that our ratings are correct in the sense that if a computer >>were to play a sufficient number of games against Swedish humans, it would end >>up with a rating close to what it has on our list. Unfortunately, as programs >>get better it becomes increasingly difficult to arrange meaningful games against >>human players. Reassuringly, we've noted that our ratings are fairly consistent >>with the results from the yearly Aegon tournament in Holland. > > >Baloney nowadays. No program would consistently play at near 2700 at >aegon. I respect your point of view as an experienced and practising computer chess person. However, I feel compelled to ask: have you any evidence to support this assertion? If not, why do you think it is so? At the end of the day, good chess is good chess. A machine that can beat more computers is also likely to beat more humans. Graham
This page took 0.02 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.