Author: stuart taylor
Date: 08:32:18 10/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 2002 at 21:51:30, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 30, 2002 at 21:21:41, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 30, 2002 at 16:05:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On October 30, 2002 at 15:31:38, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>The very highest scorer if the ssdf had tested all the above, seems to have to >>>>be one of these three Deep Fritz 7, or Chess Tiger 15, or CM9K Utzinger >>>>settings. Does that make sense? And if so, that in any case, these would take >>>>the top 3 places? >>> >>>Nobody knows. >>> >>>You'll get plenty of guesses, though. >>> >>>Just for fun, let's consider just these entries from the current SSDF list: >>> Rating + - Games Won Av.opp >>>1 Deep Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2763 34 -31 535 73% 2587 >>>2 Fritz 7.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2742 30 -29 574 64% 2637 >>>3 Shredder 6.0 Paderb 256MB Athlon 1200 2736 25 -24 831 66% 2623 >>>5 Chess Tiger 14.0 CB 256MB Athlon 1200 2717 30 -30 557 61% 2638 >>> >>>A glance will show you that given the error bars, any of them could be the >>>strongest. >> >>I can see that. The minus of the highest, and the plus of the lowest, change >>them around. >> >>> >>>Now, CT 15 or CM9K are unknown. They might be stronger than all of the above. >>>They might be weaker than all of the above. They might be somewhere in the >>>middle. >>> >>>By the time we could know an answer, the next iteration of all the products will >>>be out. >>> >>>In any case, any of them are "strong enough" that it will make no difference >>>which one of them we are playing against (as humans) for 99.9999% of us. >> >>It is good to have the feeling that you are getting the most educated advice >>when trying to analyze a game, and if you are very hopeful that a sacrifice you >>think is ingenious, should work, you would want the program most likely to see >>the truth about it, as possible. >>And when playing, you would rather be beaten by wisdom than by your human >>frailties being exposed (which any good program can do). I mean, the greater the >>program (nowdays) the more likelihood of its wisdom. And in that way, you are >>slightly more likely to learn things from your lost games. >>That's why I keep wanting the "best" in playing strength. Not because the others >>are too easy. >>S.Taylor > >Wouldn't it be nice if you had a real, human, top GM at your beck and call >anytime day and night, but could turn him off when you were not in the mood? > >Wouldn't it be nice if you could decide what you would discuss together and not >have to listen politely to some unsolicited and unwanted lecture? > >If the "human" turned out to be non-human, you might be upset for awhile but if >you really couldn't tell the difference anyway, then maybe you could learn to >live with it. > >: ) > >Bob D. Very much so! S.Taylor
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.