Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:30:55 02/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Doesn't it? If the SSDF results are supposed to give some sort of rating >depending on the strengt of the programs/computer/whatever, I don't see >why testing 200mmx vs. 90 don't give any usefull information. It's >basicly the same as having a stronger player play a week one. The >stronger side have more to loose, and little to gain. No - its not the same ! If you get a kiss from a robot-girl and a kiss from a woman, is it the same ? What do you want to explain to me ? That computer can write poems ?? No the can't. They do not play chess, they TRY to play chess by emulating it. And emulations stuck due to different reasons if you change the setup-parameters. >It's probably like beeing in a world of IM's, and suddenly a bunch of >GM's turns up beating the crap out of the IM's. Should we then stop >testing IM's against GM's? :) No IM is speeded up 3 times and is GM ! How would Fischer play against his clone if his clone is doped and plays 3 times faster ? How would Kasparov play against a kasparov clone if the clon gets more hash ? You cannot relate this. The key is that a) there is NO absolute playing strength (even between humans there is a parameter called PLAYING STYLE that overwrites offen the parameter playing-strength and makes it impossible to measure who is stronger) b) computers do only emulate chess. >(Remember: the SSDF results has little to do with real life human chess) THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER EACH DAY - of course !!! > >janfrode
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.