Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:43:49 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 18:23:43, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 15:39:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] > >> >>I suspect that _if_ FIDE allowed computers to compete and earn the title, >>computers would have an easier time than humans. For the key reason of >>consistency. They don't get tired, nor have bad days. They lack some important >>skills, but the consistency might be enough to offset that. If the rules were >>changed to say "2600+ over three consecutive events" it might be harder, but if >>a computer plays in enough tournaments, it will probably produce three of those >>over some long period of time, simply by the Elo statistical variability. >> > >I am saving this entire post (although I have snipped the top part here). :) > >You say computers can earn the GM Title easier than humans, the key reason is >consistency. > >We agree. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson "consistency" is an unusual word here. IE in my interpretation of computers and chess, they _consistently_ play like 2400-2450 players. But they do it game after game (except for when they get snookered into an anti-computer position). A GM will play at 2550 for almost every game, but he will make the occasional blunder/mistake. Every few games. This means that he will have a tough time hitting that 2600+ performance level for a norm, while a computer can luck out every now and then due to the less frequent mistakes they make... IE like playing tennis against a guy that has a violent forehand and backhand shot, good overhead, and good serve. Vs a guy that has little "control" but is able to return almost every shot to the other side of the court. He will win his share even though he looks like an amateur.
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.