Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:16:59 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 11:07:03, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi: >That best programs are IM strenght is not a novelty. I think I have seen many >post by Bob saying that, but in any case if a shadow of a doubt still existed, >the tournament in Holland has given another proof of it. Now IM lose >systematically to best programs or get a draw or win just once in a while. Now >an IM winning a top program IS the new. Respect GM, that's another history as >much as the "GM" expression encloses a very wide category. There are worlds of >difference between a normal GM and one of the top ten or one of the top five. >Seems like differences between players get bigger the highest his capacities. >Between a 1600 and a 1500 elo player there is not really a big gap, but between >a 2500 and a 2600 there are parsecs of distance. So the discussion should be: >which kind of GM top programs already are or are near to be? My guess: they are >or near to be member of the pack of low level GM's. Another guess: they will be >top 50 GM's class in 5 years at most. And ten top in 10 years, excepto if >something unexpected happens, like the fall of an asteroid on Earth. >Fernando If Fritz draws with van der Wiel, it will get a TPR > 2600 and a GM norm, even without counting the 2 forfeits of Bosboom and van der Sterren. So a PC program scored like a grand master, but don't you tell me that plays like one. I seem to have a semantic problem: the word "master" doesn't come to my mind when I see how programs (not only Fritz but all of them) play against the van Welys and Grootens; boom-boom chess may score well, but "master" (mastering the game of chess) it is not. Enrique
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.