Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:34:34 12/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1998 at 03:16:49, Reynolds Takata wrote: >In the post below, R. Hyatt States, that Crafty is a "reasonably Strong IM". >Then he goes on to state, that on equal hardware Crafty isn't as good as the >commercial programs. So Is R. Hyatt alluding that he thinks perhaps some >commercial strength programs are GM strength? No. The IM range of FIDE ratings covers at least a 200 rating point spread. Based on lots of games, I suspect that on my quad processor machine Crafty is in the middle-to-upper end of that range, around 2400 or so. I don't think the commercial programs are much higher than that running on currently available hardware like the xeon 450 or whatever. And I think that Crafty would drop down a little on slower hardware. Playing vs humans, I doubt you will find a lot of difference between *any* of the well-exercised programs. Playing computer vs computer gives a different picture altogether. > Perhaps he is referring to fast >time controls only here? Though it seems(to me) that he is reffering to >standard time controls. Just wondering because in the recent past months, i >seem to recall him stating that progs perhaps weren't even I.M strength. I never said "programs weren't at IM strength." I've been pretty emphatic that I think that the upper bound (FIDE) for them is 2400-2450 *at best*... This fits right in with that feeling. Others have the same opinion (IM/GM players) when talking about micros at "standard" time controls. At Blitz Crafty is easily a "super-GM" and would win a majorify of the games against any player I can think of (and It has played some super-GM players at 5 0 btw). >Recently I have noted a veritable explosion of noted authorities claiming progs >are GM strength. Will this increasing acknowledgement of GM strength by >computers increase the popularity of progs, Or will everyone become satisfied, >and cease purchasing programs(for strength)? I myself have every program in the >SSDF top ten, including most of the newer unrated ones(CM6000, MCP8, R10, J5) >except for CSTAL and TIGER :(. Why do I have these programs? The honest answer >i'm starting to think is just a habit of wanting the newest thing :). I'm >starting to think my appetite for progs is satiated, but then again just start >to having everyone say that some new program is definitely a GM and i'll >probably be hooked :), like a fish. > no idea what will happen, since "consumers" aren't always logical. *any* of today's programs can beat all but a few hundred of the worlds top players. And all of the rest. It "ought" to become a decision based on "features" rather than "strength" when it comes to choosing a chess program. But there is something about these "inflated Elo ratings" that still attracts folks. >"I only have a small amount of data. It won the Pan American chess >tournament about 2 years ago, and has a USCF rating of just under 2400, >running on a single pentium pro/200mhz machine. It has also played in >two tournaments with GM players, but at somewhat rapid time controls >(game/30) and finished ahead of all the GM's in the event, as did the >other programs involved... > >It probably plays like a reasonably strong IM player on good hardware, >which is where I think most of the micros are lumped as well. Is it >"close to the commercial programs?" Depends. On a quad-processor it >is as good as any of them or better, based on results on ICC. On equal >hardware it isn't as good... But it can play chess..." > > > >-- >Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences >hyatt@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham >(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
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.