Author: martin fierz
Date: 17:10:44 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 18:47:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 15:59:53, martin fierz wrote: > >>On August 20, 2002 at 15:11:24, Jeff White wrote: >> >>>>there sure is nothing magical to "24", but i think it's clear that longer >>>>matches are more desirable from a statistical point of view. >>> >>>Sure, thats exactly why I wanted to know how come it's never happened. I would >>>think that programmers of the top programs would like to see this as well. As I >>>said in a previous post, short matches mean nothing. A six game match, if you >>>lose once, all you have to do is draw the rest of the games to back in to a >>>victory. A 24 game match, you may have to win a little more than 1 or 2 to win >>>the match. The one I'd REALLY like to see would be Kasparov against the best >>>program in the world in a first to win 6 draws not counting. But thats somewhat >>>of a fantasy. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Jeff >> >>it won't happen because in man-machine matches, the machines put up the money, >>and, who pays decides how the match is played (=chessbase, mostly). i'm sure all >>the programmers are very aware of the fact that their programs would have >>significantly worse chances in a longer match, so this won't happen at the time >>being. >> >>aloha >> martin > >No >I expect it to happen after machines beat humans at faster time control unless >the name of the machine is deep blue. > >Uri read my post uri, before replying :-) it says "won't happen at *this* time". i believe that it will happen, once computers beat humans in short matches. if kasparov and kramnik lose against junior and fritz, it may happen soon. but it is not happening at this time because the programmers / chessbase are afraid to play longer matches. once they lose that fear, they will play. aloha martin
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.