Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:44:28 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 18:13:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: <snipped> >>Here is the list of the programs above 2600. >>You can see that the porgrams played usually more than 400 games > >Yes, Uri, I knew it. But! I wrote "that could be added up". I did not understand what you mean by "could be added up" so I ignored it. I understand your point that learning is important in their matches when it is not important in real tournaments when programs are allowed to change book between games. I think that it may be interesting to test programs also when they do not start from the initial position but from random positions from gm-gm games. <snipped> >>You can find list of human-calibaeration results from 1987-1991 when 24 old >>programs played against humans and got rating based on average number of game >>that is slightly more than 10 games for program but unfortunately there are >>only results and no games when chris carason games do not include the games that >>they talk about. > >That isn't even the most interesting thing. I take it for granted that they >played these games. But. You can't take some 20 masters from Sweden and let them >play a few skittles. This is not calibration. It's a joke. Do you think that >"masters" had something to fear from commercial progs? I don't think so. I believe that masters are weaker than the chess programs of today not because of opening book. I expect masters to lose against programs also in shuffle chess. The picture may be different for grandmasters if they get money for winning. <snipped> >>>And now the height is ok? How did you prove it? >> >>I did not prove it but I think that most people agree that 2841 for Fritz7 on >>A1200 is at least 100 elo too high so reducing the number by 100 elo reduce the >>difference relative to humans. > >Uri, Uri! I drives tears in my eyes to see you argue so carefully. But you are >already intoxicated. Please subtract 300 Elo numbers and then we can start the >debate. I do not say that the numbers are correct but only that they are closer to the truth relative to the case they were not reducing the list by 100 elo. Just my opinion. Other numbers are completely unrealistic. Or did you >ever see events over a longer period of time, at tournament level, and with real >money at stake? And most of all, did you see fair rules? The rules are still >coming from the old days when progs were no real opponents. I believe that humans could perform better when there is money at stake(see the result of smirin against computers). I do not think that no opening book is a fair rule. If you want to find the level of programs without opening the only way is to play a match not from the opening position when both sides do not know the opening position and I doubt if GM's who never played 1.e4 c5 with black are going to play well when they need suddenly to play a position from the swesnikov that they never learned. Uri
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.