Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 22:34:49 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 22:08:48, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >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 For what its worth everyone knows that certain GM's have postional strength and others have tactical strength yet up to now all we care about is the actual value of their rating and never have we said that he/she really doesnt deserve the rating because they dont have alot of positional knowledge. If the player has tremendous tactical knowledge far superior then all the others then the relevance of positional understanding is not as important. Having said that who cares what makes a particular programs rating high lets just apply the same rules that have applied to all chess players over the years. Les >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.