Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 15:50:42 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 12:58:55, Graham Laight wrote: >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? > I don't know what tournament you're talking about. My recollection is that the games versus Genius were isolated exhibition games, and not part of any tournament. If you have details, please post them. >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? > Maybe, maybe not. My point was that if you're trying to accurately judge the computer's playing strength, you need to see more than 2 games. >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. > I regret using the work "accident" to describe that game. Kasparov certainly deserved to lose it - my point was just that I think Garry would have finished well ahead of Genius in a longer match. As you said, this whole debate is largely anecdotal because there aren't enough games to draw firm conclusions. I have stated many times that I think computers are probably in the 2450-2500 range, but that we really need more 40/2 comp vs. human games to draw conclusions. I believe that if you take all of the recent Rebel games and compute a performance rating, you'll find that it is very close to 2500. (It was 2485 before the 2 games against IM Russek). This is pretty clearly below the requirements for a GM norm. --Peter >-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 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.