Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 03:58:00 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. > you probably used the computer in a creative way by looking forwards in variations and compared different engines, didn't you? Than computers can be very helpful. A program which simply analyzes the position for some days and then move will be even on fast hardware not on GM-Level. >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
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.