Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Thanks ... and in summary

Author: GuyHaworth

Date: 14:55:39 08/01/02

Go up one level in this thread



Good information in the answers, illuminating some of the issues.  Thanks.

First, my focus is on 'rating' chess-engines on the basis of play against solely
human opponents under controlled conditions.

As VD says, FIDE defines the conditions it requires for the awarding of norms.

Other conditions might be attached to the fact that the chess-player is silicon
rather than carbon, e.g. the configuration of the engine in all essential
parameters must be logged and maybe 'mothballed' for later replication.

I was not suggesting that humans should be rated against computers 'with a FIDE
rating'.  There is still the question of replicating the engine that got the
rating, as VD's scenario about powersaving/small_hash_table/etc/etc engines
illustrates.

It seems that HIARCS missed out by 0.5 points, though the other criteria were
arguably met.

There have certainly been cases of engines achieving norms (in principle) in the
past, e.g. BELLE (UKCF Chess Master?), DEEP THOUGHT, DEEP JUNIOR, <your
nomination goes here>

g



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.