Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 10:31:54 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 12:57:24, Chris Carson wrote: >I see support for the Super GM (2700+) case, I do not see any data/results for >the below 2700 case that you state. This is a broad range of players and a >large spread of ratings. Lots of games, some tournament and some matches. The important distinction is the match conditions, ie. similar to those given to Kasparov and Kramnik as initially mentioned in my reply to Chessfun. (The financial arrangement aside) Games from the past are virtually irrelevant in this respect. Whether "weak" GMs would have a chance push computer programs below 2700 without preparation is a different question. I don't think that is impossible either if the incentive is there. Older data may not be as suggestive as one might think, because the parameters are vastly different. Then there's still the scientific test, ie. the matchup without preparation, where the engine is stripped of artificial help like opening books and endgame tables. I'm sure that there are those that doesn't consider this to be the scientific test. That's their problem IMHO. There's plenty of life left in the human vs. chess program encounter if it isn't manipulated by commercial interests IMO. I hope that doesn't sound too much like Rolf ;-). Regards, Mogens
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.