Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 06:54:18 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 09:22:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On May 12, 2001 at 04:03:14, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On May 11, 2001 at 22:23:28, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>Even If Kramnik decides not to practice against the latest version of Fritz 7, >>>his chances of winning is about 65%, but if he still wants to practice against >>>Fritz 7, his chances will increase to almost 85%. >> >>Giving Fritz a 15% chance of winning strikes me as generous! >> >>I'd go for about 2%. >> >>-g >> >>>Pichard. > >This is in my opinion complete speculation, last time we got a rating >performance from DJ6 against humans it was 2703 (on slower hardware and weaker >program) so if we assume that this time on stronger hardware, and a stronger >engine, keep in mind that DF7 beat DJ7 which was an improvement over DJ6, DF7 >is rated 2750 or more then the numbers you come up with makes no sense at all, >and we should remember that all the top players of today owns atleast a copy of >the above mentioned programs and then some. Top GMs own every copy of the top chess programs? Maybe,maybe not.Some GMS i think, might even practice against Fritz only thinking it's the same as Junior or anyother program. Even if they do, they probably use it more as a aid to analysis, blunder checks and stuff, rather than viewing the program as a opponent to beat unlike rival Human GMs. Why would they borther, except for the rare one off exhbitition matches? So the 2703 rating you use is probably over-rated once a GM treats the program as a serious opponent. >If we assume the rating of 2750 is >about right then it would be the actual playing strenght, then there is the >matter of perfect endgame which, This makes no sense. the 2750 if correct covers every aspect of the game, why the mention of perfect endgame? >last time i checked, is a privilege reserved >for computers only, The last time i checked, only 3-4-5 and some almost useless 6 pieces tbs are available. >also the antihuman play is almost by definition implemented >in all of todays programs, What is the definition of "anti-human play"? Is there something similar everyone does to their program that I can point to and say there is "anti-human features". Getting the position open? all this taken into account makes the match, to me, >very open indeed. >Computers never have a bad day, they don't sweat under pressure, they don't >care about money, they haave no ego This I agree with. This has always being the main strenght of computers. >and they play the board NOT the man!! Well they definitely play the man, if we are going to talk about anti-human play plus preparation against Kramnik...;)
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.