Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:01:13 03/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2002 at 08:56:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 01, 2002 at 08:37:42, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 28, 2002 at 16:55:14, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2002 at 14:21:01, Paul Doire wrote: >>> >>>>When chess is "figured out" what ELO will that equate to? >>>> >>>>Paul >>> >>>There was a recent post that said 3300. This seems reasonable. >>> >>>I think 4000 which was guessed on this thread is a wild exaggeration. >>> >>>If perfect play is 3300, Kasparov would score about 7%, and the average GM 2-4%. >>>If perfect play is 4000, then these percentages should be divided by 40, which >>>stretches belief. >> >>I think 3300 is too low, the super GMs are already having great problems with >>the top mini progs, just look at Rebels last match. Since there is not yet any >>major signs of diminishing returns, and since we're only at ply ~12 there is >>still a lot of room for improvement. I think a 20 ply searcher would "tear >>Kasparov to pieces". Notice how even the top players say "this position is >>unclear" or "black has good chances". > >I agree with Amir. > > >1)There is a big gap even between 3000 and the top GM's. >2)I think that Fritz on good hardware can usually search 14 plies with no >problems. >If you assume 2700 for Fritz and if you assume average of 50 elo for one ply in >the next 6 plies you get only 3000 elo for 20 plies and if you assume >diminishing returns at high depth then it is easy to guess that 3300 is not too >low. Perfectly valid opinion also to assume DR, it is just the other end of the spectrum, anywhere in between is probably the right answer ;) >One note is that I do not assume constant number of plies and I assume more >plies in the endgames. I think you will see the top humans lose the game not in the opening, but in the mid or endgame, espicially the endgame must be played accurately or you can lose it very fast. >I even suspect that the real rating that you can get against humans is even >lower than 3300 because as soon as the top GM's understand that they have no >chance to win they will go for a draw and winning against somebody that her(his) >target is to draw is harder. Maybe yes, must depend on the chess-tree itself, it takes two to play the game, what if the computer decides to play some crazy scandinavian or kinggambit just to throw the whole game into an intense tactical battle? It is anyones guess really :) >Uri
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.