Author: James T. Walker
Date: 03:19:26 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 05:51:38, georges alain wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 04:26:06, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 03:47:38, georges alain wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2003 at 02:06:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2003 at 01:46:51, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello, >>>>>On very fast hardware with todays best programs, how would those programs fare >>>>>in a round robin correspondence tournament playing exclusively against postal >>>>>GMs? >>>>>Even if they couldn't yet compete at this level, how far off is the day when >>>>>they are bona fide postal GM strength? >>>>>Opinions? >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>I believe that they can compete at this level. >>>>GM's in correspondence chess are players who played well in the past relative to >>>>their opponents. >>>>It tells me nothing about their level relative to computers. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>GM's who got their rating not in the last years may be even weaker than >>>>computers because they did not use fast hardware to get their rating. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Not sure ! >>>Christophe Léotard, better French ELO by correspondence, pulverized on 4 parts >>>the softwares Hiarcs 7 and Chess Tiger 14 (+3=1-0). >> >>The hardware was not fast hardware and I think that at least Hiarcs chose bad >>opening because of book. >> >>It is better if programs trust less the open library in that time control and >>leave the opening book earlier. >> >> >>>" The more time of reflexion is reduced, the less the man can compete. By >>>correspondence, it is not rare to reflect 15 days on a position, to analyze >>>alternatives which go from the opening to the finale. In addition, the human >>>ones have a great advantage on the machines in the sense that their libraries of >>>opening are largely higher, as well qualitatively as quantitatively. It is far >>>from being the case with the clock. The world n°1 by correspondence, Timmerman, >>>is classified 2734. It is established that the best machines do not exceed 2100 >>>at rate correspondence, and I am perhaps still too generous." >> >>No >> >>Based on my experience it is not the case and I won a lot of 2500+ or 2400+ >>players based on mainly computer moves. >> >>Steve Ham played against computers and lost 2.5-1.5 and he also did not play >>against the best software and the best hardware of today. >> >>I expect 2600 player to beat 2100 player 4-0 in most of the cases so even the >>3.5-.5 suggests that the programs are more than 2100. >> >>I do not understand french so I am not going to respond to the last comments. >> >>Uri > >Hello > >You are right if you speak about "chess with clock" but coresspondance chess are >very different: no time pressure, no tactics tricks, possibility to check your >opening line in an encyclopedia. or in database. > >Look for exemple a the last game of the match Junior-Kasparov. >Kasparov was in a véry good position beut hard to win so he prefer to drawn the >game and the match. Do you really think that kasparov would have draw this game >in correspondance chess ? certainly not. > >please excuse my poor english > >Phili But would this position arise in corrrespondence chess? You talk of how Kasparov would do better with more time but what about the computer? It's not going to do better also? Another thing. You talk about the best chess player in the world not just an ordinary GM. Why is it when people try to claim computers are not GM level they always want to compare the the #1 rated player when there are hundreds of GM players that computers beat easily. Jim
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.