Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:05:46 05/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2002 at 16:59:02, Roy Eassa wrote: >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. > > I believe Frans would be happy to win one of every 10 games at 40/2hr. Of course it would take a lot of money to get Kasparov to invest that kind of effort into a bunch of games as well... >>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. That is in line with my estimate for computers as well... assuming that the opponents play the computer rather than the board. > >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. I disagree there. Roman has "rewired" and wrecks computers right and left at blitz time controls on ICC. Others do it to. They are slowly adapting...
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.