Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:12:47 06/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2002 at 00:04:45, Slater Wold wrote: >On May 31, 2002 at 22:13:55, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Rolf raised an interesting point. To him, the SSDF list is not very interesting >>unless you can be sure of the connection to human strength. >> >>From: >>http://home.interact.se/~w100107/welcome.htm >> >>We see that there are now: >>14,378 games in the SSDF database. >> >>If you could convince GM's to play for $100/game with full concentration, that >>would amount to $1,437,800.00 >> >>I suspect that GM's get 5-10x that amount (depending upon their ability). >> >>If we could convince them to play for $350.00 per game, it would cost about five >>million dollars. $350 is not a lot of money, but with a huge number of games as >>a potential, I suspect that a lot of GM's could be talked into it because it >>would be a source of steady income. We could have bonus dollars for wins and a >>lesser amount for losses to make sure that they were trying really hard. >> >>Actually, it's not as bad as I thought. I wonder if the chess program >>manufacturers might want to cough up some of that cash. > >I can see the headlines now: > >"Chessbase pays 10 top GMs $5M dollars, and realizes their programs aren't very >good!" > >Yea, that'll happen. ;) > > > >When it comes to a GM vs Computer game, I only take a handful of programs >seriously. Chess Tiger, Rebel, Junior, and Crafty. > >Almost all other programs I have seen, aren't very good against GMs. ESPECIALLY >Shredder. Please, Andrew, you must not be so embittered. If SSDF and the companies and programmers _prefer_ the whole bogus about >2600 Elo this bogus can go on! As long as bogus sells. Fine by me. But I wanted to put computerchess (commercial and amateur the same) on its feet again - where it once was after the war and where it belongs. And IMO also a 2350 Elo prog would sell because it would be pretty strong enough for 99% of mankind. I think I showed why top GM, if they "reacted" like a group and developped real anti-computerchess, the actual progs would be happy with 2350. Most people forget about this important thesis. Even Dr. Hyatt is still dreaming with his >2500. Perhaps this came through ICC experiences with Blitz. My main point is that once the GM had discovered a certain formula (this is not talking about cooking special lines; I'm talking about chess! and that couldn't be programmed again...) also weaker players could adopt it! BTW the actual "learning tool" is more for comp vs comp. The competition against human chess hasn't begun yet. Following the famous "Law of Andrew" companies will do their best to prevent that the fight will ever ever begin. :) Rolf Tueschen
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.