Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 14:35:01 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2000 at 14:30:40, blass uri wrote: >On May 07, 2000 at 13:47:57, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On May 07, 2000 at 09:01:57, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>> F6 Rebel S4 DJ >>>>Average opponent rating 2412 2369 2391 2297 >>>>Games played 7 7 5 3 >>>>Comp score 3 5 4 2 >>>>TPR 2355 2541 2630 2430 >>>> >>>>Computers average TPR after 23 games: 2487 >>> >>>Sorry. It should be: >>> >>>Computers average TPR after 22 games: 2487 >>> >>>Enrique >> >> >>Thanks for posting this, Enrique. >> >>2487 is almost exactly the same performance rating that Rebel achieved in the >>20+ games it played last year against humans (Rebel challenge + match vs >>Lithuanian team). It seems that we are finally getting a good idea of the >>playing strength of the commercial programs. >> >>Do you know what hardware was used in Israel? > >The hardware was pIII500 in most of the cases. > >The games give only lower bound for the playing strength of programs because >humans are not forced to play with the machine(the team can choose the player to >play against the machine). > >The Israeli league gives only lower bound for the rating of computers because of >another reason and the reason is that upgrade of programs is not allowed in the >Israeli league. > >The GM challange gives only a lower bound because of the fact that GM's are not >forced to play with the machine. I disagree. In the Israeli league programs are facing all sort of players, from 2000 to 2500+. This is more real than playing exclusively against the strongest GMs, something that has been artificially inflating the ratings of the best human players for a long time. Aside from this, the inability to update programs seems quite irrelevant to me: let's say that this tpr applies to programs of 6 months ago. Enrique >Uri
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.