Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 13:59:02 05/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2002 at 16:34:04, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 23, 2002 at 14:20:09, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On May 23, 2002 at 13:41:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>Kramnik wants FRITZ (sic!) 6 months in advance and some more rules. The FRITZ >>>even Eduard Nemeth with Elo 2100 can beat almost at will? Strange. >>> >> >> >>I thought Eduard was quite a bit stronger than 2100. Also, I'm pretty sure he >>canNOT beat Fritz 7 "almost at will". He can win more games against it than >>might be predicted by his rating, and far more than most humans can, but I think >>he would be the first to tell you that he loses a lot of games against it too. > > >Roy, that's true. Two points. > >1. Do you believe that Kasparov would lose a game against Fritz at all? I mean >not in a match or in public for some PR, there even POCKET Fritz drew with Leko. >I mean in real. And no Blitz or fast controls. Although Eddie wins 5, 10, 20, 30 >minutes games. I have seen about 100 games in total. > I believe Fritz 7b running on a fast PC can indeed win *some* 40/2 games against Kasparov, unless Kasparov always plays for a draw. I believe Kasparov would win a lot more games than Fritz would, if the match were of any significant length. >2. If Fritz and Junior are presented as 2700 machines a little hot air might be >allowed in my position too, only into the opposite direction to inspire >thinking. It's not so funny if here except Dr. Hyatt nobody showed interest in >my thought experiment with the 5 human GM in a group who trained on the "new" >chess directly designed for computers. In that case only I believe the computers >fall down to 2200-2350. Instead everybody is happy to declare that I must be >wrong with such numbers. BTW I must read the old posts you have written about >the topic before my time. The offline readers are not yet very comfortable, >alas. > >Rolf Tueschen My estimates were around 2550, which is halfway between your 2350 number and the 2750 some claim. But it's not my estimates that matter, it's the concept of uncertainty. IMHO, nobody can be really certain of the true strength of these machines yet. Only when GMs have spent a few years with them as frequent opponents can we start to know the computers' real strength. I think most GMs over 30 or 35 may already be too old to "re-wire" their neurons to the different approaches required (e.g., avoiding all possible tactical inaccuracies at all costs, even if it means forgoing certain promising strategies) against computers as opposed to the approaches they've spent years and years refining against humans.
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.