Author: Joseph Merolle
Date: 09:10:40 06/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
First off if computers played in GM tournaments and the humans had no idea that they were playing a computer Humans would lose almost every time. In an open position GMs have bad odds against today’s computers. Even Kramnik got his ass kicked in open positions in his last computer match, of which my 300mhz lap top found the same moves that were found in the game by their super computer. What does that tell you! However if the position is closed the odds flip. Because of these facts and all the matches Kasparov had against computers I would say it actually diminished his tactical play thus the reason for losing his title. Gary learned that he could no longer beat a computer in an open tactical match and change his style to compensate for this! This compensation mind set was brought in his match against Kramnik. Just think Gary could not find one winning move the whole match in a tactical scrabble that he faced against Kramnik. P.S. All this hype about that super lap top computer/women match is crap. In a 40 in 2 time control that exstra speed adds about 50 elo points at best. Regards JAMerolle On June 11, 2004 at 09:50:05, George Tsavdaris wrote: >On June 11, 2004 at 08:36:19, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 11, 2004 at 05:53:23, George Tsavdaris wrote: >> >>>On June 10, 2004 at 19:08:05, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On June 10, 2004 at 18:55:23, mike tubbs wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>>I'm a newbie, i was wondering what the strength of the current top five is on >>>>>ordinary hardware xp2000+? Are they Grandmaster Strength yet? >>>> >>>>Even in 1999 with a mere 450 Mhz, please take a look :-) >>>> >>>>http://www.geocities.com/marochess/ssdf/ssdf.htm >>> >>>YOU said the truth and now you forgot your own words? >>> >>>You said at http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?369716: >>>"...since I always believe that the SSDF rating List is way too inflated and >>>people here on this forum immediately compare the top 10 programs from the SSDF >>>with Humans grandmaster and if the human doesn't have and Elo higher than >>>> 2700 we don't consider them worthy. >>>PS: We need to take into consideration that the SSDF rating is simply a comp vs >>>comp rating and nothin more." >>> >>> And now you give SSDF's list of 1999, to support the statement that engines was >>>GM strength because their SSDF ELO was more than 2600?? >>> >>> >>> SSDF's engines ELO, doesn't have almost nothing to do with engines ELO against >>>humans. No one can believe that Shredder on an Athlon 1200MHz is 2800+ ELO. If >>>this was the case, then on a 2800+ XP would be 2900+. Too optimistic! >> >>I do not see how can you get this conclusion. >> >>How do you know that the difference between >>shredder8 A1200 and shredder8 2800+ XP is 100 elo against humans? > > You are right. I don't know it. I just put the perfect rounded number 100, for >being the difference between XP 2800+ and Athlon 1200 MHz. The difference could >be any number(I believe positive). > >>Maybe it is only 40 elo. >> >>Assume that you are right that shredder on A1200 is weaker than 2800. >>How do you know that the ssdf list is also inflated for engines of 1999. >>Maybe it is only inflated for engines of 2004? > > The only thing i claim is that the SSDF list is coming from eng-eng matches, so >the ELO's of the engines on the SSDF list, is not with almost any way, >comparable to the ELO's of the humans in the FIDE list. > >> >>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.