Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:11:10 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 14:01:43, Graham Laight wrote: >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 I feel that way based on watching them play. 2700 is an incredibly high rating, better than all but maybe 10 players. I don't believe a computer other than Deep Blue has a prayer of playing at that level, on any hardware forseeable for the next 5 years, assuming the PC platform. Rebel has almost hit 2500 against GM and IM players. to get to 2700 would require a herculean effort. IE it would have to win 3 games for every loss vs 2500 players, which seems impossible at present...
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.