Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:43:43 01/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 14:32:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2001 at 13:41:00, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >>On January 12, 2001 at 00:41:33, Garry Evans wrote: >> >>> A short while ago, i asked you on ICC, would you acknowledge that computers are >>>of Grandmaster Strength if Rebel Won the Match against Van der Wiel, your answer >>>Was yes!! So would you please honour this agreement and acknowledge here in >>>Public that computers are GM Strength? >> >>This makes me angry. When will you people understand that "computers are GM >>strength" is a bogus statement repeated over and over again since it does not >>include enough information. "Computers are at least GM strength in 1 0" is >>certainly true. "Computers are GM strength in tourniament play" might be true, >>"Computers are GM strength in analysis" will not be true for the next few years. > >For analysis, computers will sometimes have GM strength. For instance, with 7 >chessmen on the board and 6 piece tablebase files, I think that they are clearly >GM. If you have 14 chessmen on the board, that is another story. For closed >positions, they are below IM (look at WAC 230). > >Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a program that can get WAC 230 at 40/2 >time controls? If there is, I will have to revise my thinking on that one. I haven't tried recently, but about 6 months ago crafty got it in 60 seconds. It was very close as I could run the suite 4 times and get it right once, and miss it the next three times as the thing would take over a minute... I have Tim Mann's log file where it took 34 seconds on a single cpu 21264 to fail high on Rb4. I don't think this is a horribly difficult one. Cray Blitz always got it quickly. Crafty doesn't quite have the same evaluation and has more trouble.
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.