Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 23:40:35 06/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2003 at 23:23:36, Mark Young wrote: >On June 12, 2003 at 22:55:18, Michael Vox wrote: > >>http://www.rediff.com/sports/2003/jun/12chessanand.htm >> >> >>So are computers ruling the roost? >> >>At the moment it is pretty competitive. As far as I can tell, there has not been >>a quantum leap in computer technology in the last 2-3 years. Earlier, it was >>almost like Moore's Law, where the computer got stronger with every generation >>of processor. But now the growth is much slower. It's not fifty points but now >>it's 5-10 points. The Man versus Machine contests these days are pretty even. >>Who knows what the future will bring, but at the moment it's 50-50. > > >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. Deep Junior 8 played very bad against Kasparov and should have lost at least 4 games in this match. Kasparov is definitely not the guy who should defend "humans honour" in chess. > >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. Nonsense. If you play only 3 games per week there is no reason for that. > >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. > >Brutal! Not at all Michael
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.