Author: Graham Laight
Date: 09:58:55 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 11:52:28, Peter Kappler wrote: >On January 05, 2000 at 04:51:43, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On January 05, 2000 at 01:05:20, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>I'd still take Kasparov or Anand in a G/30 match against any micro, though it >>>would certainly be competitive. >> >>You mean like Kasparov did in London, in 1994, against Genius 3 on a Pentium 90? >> >>-g >> > > >I'd want the match to be longer than 2 games, so accidents like that don't >influence the result too heavily. Make it 24 games and I'd feel pretty good >about GK's chances. > >--Peter Hi Peter, Didn't 2 other GMs have the same "accident" in the same tournament? Isn't 2 games enough for a GM to get at least one win against Genius 3 on a Pentium 90 - even at active time controls? When we discuss computer v human strength, I think that these "accidents" should be taken into consideration - especially when the evidence being put forward by the "computers are not yet even 2500" brigade seems to be mostly of a similar anecdotal nature. -g >>>FWIW, I think most people underestimate the talent gap between someone like >>>Kasparov and an ordinary GM. The rating difference is roughly 300 points, which >>>is a massive difference in strength. >>> >>>--Peter
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.