Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:15:27 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 06:58:00, Joachim Rang 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. >> > >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. Yes but I believe that even without it I could get most of my points. I got 6.5 out of 8 against average of about 2450. I guess that I could probably get 5 out of 8 by only copying the computer moves and I did not use the fastest hardware and the better software of today. 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.