Author: Thom Perry
Date: 11:18:13 12/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1998 at 13:30:25, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >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. Yeah, I'm getting mixed up, too. I'm bowing out of this thread.
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.