Author: georges alain
Date: 00:33:57 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 08:34:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 08:24:43, georges alain wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 06:19:26, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>hello >>Computers don't do much better with more time , have you tried to replay the >>games of this match on your computer ? I do, with a computer wich is a least 10 >>x less faster, moves are often the same! . > > >This is wrong. > >Computers do much better with more time. > >The ssdf list always have better rating with better hardware. > >I will start to believe that computers do not do much better with more time when >Movei200 on P1000000 is going to get smaller ssdf rating than Movei200 on >P500000 inspite of hardware that is 2 times faster thanks to a statistical >error. > >Uri I am very suspicious with ssdf list andd for testing program really I prefer match with humans. More than 2700 Elo for shredder (or others)! well I have seen moves made by shredder (or others) that even a GM with only 2500 Elo and two liters of beer in stomac never play; If you don't trust me please go to this : http://ajec-echecs.org/articles/leotard2.php ( in this page click on "Hiarcs-Léotard" ) and you will see what a coresspondence player which is not world champion and only 2600 Elo can do to the poor Hiarcs 7
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.