Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 10:30:25 12/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1998 at 13:04:48, Thom Perry wrote: >On December 31, 1998 at 11:44:53, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: > >>On December 31, 1998 at 07:48:33, Thom Perry wrote: >> >>>On December 30, 1998 at 16:40:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 30, 1998 at 04:18:11, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 30, 1998 at 03:45:52, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On December 30, 1998 at 03:04:51, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>What i was reffering to is pure chess strength, if you want to say pure chess >>>>>>>strength of a program against kasparov specifically well that would be perfectly >>>>>>>satisfactory with me :). >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not clear to me what is pure chess strength. >>>>>>The strength of a program is different in different time control or in different >>>>>>openings. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Blass do you want to try to answer this question or just keep trying to come up >>>>>with a question yourself? >>>> >>>> >>>>What he is saying is that you are searching for the 'holy grail' of computer >>>>chess, and it probably doesn't exist in the form you desire. Programs are all >>>>different. They play differently at different time controls, in different >>>>openings, and in different types of games/positions. You can ask a dozen GM >>>>players on ICC which program gives _them_ the most trouble in blitz, and get >>>>a dozen different answers, some surprising. For bullet you will get probably >>>>a different answer. And for those that play longer games you will get still >>>>different answers. And if you look at the "tactical" IM/GM players you will >>>>get a different answer than you will from the "quiet/positional" GM players. >>>> >>>>So *any* program could be the right answer to your question. Or the wrong >>>>one... >>> >>>Extremely well said, Robert, and what you are saying is absolutely correct, I am >>>sure. The reason for so many arguments on this board is the "My program is the >>>'holy grail' of chess" mentality that prevails when someone dares to suggest >>>that their pet program is not flawless. Notice the rash of messages questioning >>>the testers whenever a new SSDF rating list is issued: "Gee, are you sure you >>>tested my program correctly? Duh, it isn't number one on the list." >> >>I don't think he is asking which program is the strongest I believe he was >>asking which program Garry Kasparov thought was the strongest based on different >>informations that people heard. > >Regardless, I totally agreed with Robert's assessment regarding the current >state of chess programs. His "Holy Grail" theory explains a lot of the problems >on this board. Look at the current SSDF list and the difference between #1 and >#5 on the list. According to statistical theory, Fritz 5.0's real rating could >be as low as 2542, whereas Hiarc 6.0's real rating could be as high as 2549. >Would anyone that really knows statistics want to really argue which program is >actually higher rated as measured by the current SSDF test procedures? Yes I see truth in this statement also, but I didn't understand the responses and was wondering how they fit here in this post.
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.