Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:23:46 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 05:40:23, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 05, 2000 at 13:33:34, Robert Hyatt 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 >>> >> >> >>That was two games. I know of a family in North Alabama that had a meteorite >>crash thru the roof of their house several years ago. I don't walk around >>looking up expecting it to happen again, however... > >Very funny! But also insubstantial IMHO. > >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? What about the _other_ programs that have played at similar time controls and gotten clobbered? Remember that this is statistics. two games out of dozens could certainly happen. Typically this happens the first time a human plays a computer, then the next time the computer gets cleaned up. > >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 It is more than anecdotal. There is no contrary evidence at all, so far, other than 'opinion polls'. Let's watch the Rebel games. That will be a reasonable guage...
This page took 0.04 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.