Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:52:35 06/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2003 at 23:39:53, Russell Reagan wrote: >On June 12, 2003 at 23:23:36, Mark Young wrote: > >>If it is even right now, 50-50 against the best players. Next year it will be >>52-48 for the computers even under your growth rate for chess computer elo. > >It's not "his" rate of growth. It's Anand's (quoted from the website). > >>It is clear computers rule the roost. So unless a super Kasparov comes alone, >>you will not see any humans beating the best computer chess programs in a fair >>contest. Not to say humans will not win a game or two, but the longer the match >>the more advantage for the chess computer. > >That seems to be exactly the opposite of what every expert in the world thinks. >Longer time controls, advantage humans. > >>Could you see a human playing the strongest chess computer under the old World >>Championship system...the first player to win 6 games wins the match, draws not >>counting. > >At those time controls, humans are equal or better slightly. At correspondance >time controls, humans are clearly better. Not talking Time controls or correspondance chess. I was talking about how long the match would be, or number of games in the match. Time control would be standard 40/2hrs. From what I read correspondance chess is nothing more then computers playing computers. :)
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.