Author: blass uri
Date: 04:45:24 06/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2000 at 00:32:15, stuart taylor wrote: > Is it not true that human ratings are lower than computer ratings relative to >true standard of play due to the fact that humans make many blunders of the >nature that computers do not? > That is what I Have always beleived as being one of the reasons why computers >do as well as they do. > In other words, it could possibly be that 2650 on ssdf = 2550 against >well-prepared, top humans or even 2500 which is = 2400 in actual standard of >play, discounting tactical and mechanical extras. >Is this correct? It is known that 2650 in the ssdf probably mean less than 2300 against hasidovski(this 2177 drew 3 computers in the israeli league) so I believe that computers are weaker than 2300 against well prepared humans but almost no human is a well prepared human because humans are interested in playing against humans and not in preparing against computers so practically the rating of programs against humans is about 2550-2600(the performance of programs in the israeli league was not so good but the main reason for it is that part of the players like hasidovski were prepared(I believe that if the teams had no right to choose the humans to play against the computer less players were prepared against computers). Uri 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.