Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 19:08:48 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 21:33:22, Jerry Doby wrote: >Mr. Berg is a legitamate 2500 elo player and fritz is winning the match, I have >yet to see a bad computer result vs humans, yet some people stubbornly hold on >to the nonsense that computers are not 2500 elo????? Barbaric ignorance I would >say for sure!!! Even though this is an obvious troll, i will reply. I think the argument that computers are below 2500 is valid to some extend, the issue here is that comps does not do well in certain positions while in others they do extremely well and that makes it hard to say if a program is above or below a certain strength, if you don't have the exact position from which it is to be judged from. For example in the Van Wely v Reb Cen4, Wely played Bg3!? and Rebel went on to take the peice and lose the game (i don't have the position here, but i am sure someone could dig it up) then in the last game it won in brilliant fashion and played one of the best comp v human games i have seen. Now how can you judge a programs overall strenght from that match (as an example) being open to the fact that it played below 2500 and above 2500, determining the strenghts of computers today are really difficult and personally i believe that comps are above 2500, simply because of the fact that if they where to compete in human matches they would never get tired or make obvious mistakes+the implicit fact that they don't have to take psychology into account. When i see discussions on comp strength there is one side arguing that they are beyond any doubt stronger than 2500-2700 and on the other side there is the complete opposite saying they are below 2500-2300 and IMO i don't think that it is that simple. Regards Jonas
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.