Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 03:31:38 10/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2003 at 05:40:40, Torstein Hall wrote: >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1229 > >Is realy programs getting stronger compared to humnan GM's? > >(In my view they are) > >Torstein "Although computers obviously must be improving in recent years, the strongest humans seem to also be improving at about the same rate." a) The ELO performance in the graph, of the strongest human player(Kasparov), in the last 6 years is almost a straight line that stays the same. b) The SSDF maximum ELO performance in the graph is inceasing in the last 6 years, although the way SSDF handles it's rating list makes this less important for belying his above statement. c)Every year, we have an increase at the plies a chess-computer searches at a given time(due to improved search techniques and hardware speed) and also programmers add more knowledge at chess-computers. Humans can't improve so much every year to compensate this one(or two) plies and in fact they improve only 5 % - 10 % in relation with comps. Due to the above 3 reasons and especially the c) , his statement seems to me wrong. It's ridiculous to say that computers are not getting stronger compared to GM's (Mr Jeff Sonas didn't(yet?) said that). And it's ridiculous to say that: "I don't believe that computers will inevitably surpass the top humans". This thing is inevitable. Of course this has nothing to do with todays strength of computers, as indeed may be lower, than that of top GM's.
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.