Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:22:11 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 18:15:41, Mark Young wrote: >On June 25, 2001 at 18:05:42, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 25, 2001 at 17:51:52, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2001 at 17:48:40, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On June 25, 2001 at 17:01:56, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>I didn't say to disregard the result of Dortmund, but to disregard Dortmund >>>>>concerning the complaint I was making. In other words, regard it! :-) I realize >>>>>we must do with what we have, but if we are going to flash results and >>>>>statistics, then all the provisos regarding those results and statistics must be >>>>>considered and declared. In other words, show the results, but be honest about >>>>>the limitations or possible problems. Yes, Junior performed brilliantly, and >>>>>*perhaps* this represents its true strength, but unfortunately it is only one >>>>>tournament. Karpov had an absolute field day in Linares 1994 (I think it was 94) >>>>>but did this really represent his relative playing strength against the other >>>>>players? Yes, we have data, but it is a couple of tournaments, for two different >>>>>programs, and a collection of single games here and there. It's still a far cry >>>>>from nothing, but it's also a far cry from being conclusive. With all due >>>>>respect. Here's another tidbit: you'll sometimes read about some top board >>>>>performer in league play. Such as Christiansen did a couple of times in the >>>>>Budesliga with scores on the order of 12/13, etc. With such a result does this >>>>>mean he is a WC contender? Unfortunately not. It's a fantastic result but it is >>>>>very different from playing a tournament. Perhaps Junior wouldn't be any >>>>>different, but what about the players it played and the circumstances? >>>>> >>>>> Albert >>>> >>>>Albert, >>>> >>>>Where is the data that supports your position that programs are not 2600? At >>> >>>Have a look at any of Eduards posts. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>Thanks, I did look. The game I saw Na3 was a blitz game. 40/2 is what I am >>interested in. Blitz and 40/2 are different games, what works at blitz may not >>work at 40/2. Did I miss some of these? > >The results are bogus anyway, I can sit at home and win games as he did....Let Prove it. Eduards wins are quick and posted frequently he don't take long before posting them. If you can sit at home and do the same thing, can you do that to a GM if you had enough games? I think we know the answer as the # is unimportant you will lose them all. >Why does he not play a 20 game match, the computer will learn what he is doing >and pick a different way of playing against 2.Na3 Then he is toast. Please tell me which programs will learn? as they are out of book pretty early. Who has position learning not just book learning, and finally even with position learning they typically leave it too late, so you'll get a good few wins in before they find any solution. Again try that on a GM. Sarah.
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.