Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:40:25 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 11:16:59, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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 In the US, where basketball is big, the computer and some basketball teams have a lot in common. They live (and die) by three-point shots. But when your three-point shooters are 'cold' the game turns ugly. When the chess game is not wide-open, it turns ugly. Lots of parallels. Computers do some things very well. Others very poorly. That makes it hard (for me) to really decide how strong they actually are. You _know_ how little they "understand" but they get good results in many cases. So do the three-point shooters, of course. But not always when it counts the most.
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.