Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:24:21 03/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 1999 at 16:14:46, Matt Frank wrote: >On March 18, 1999 at 05:23:11, Charles Unruh wrote: > >>I don't think this match will really show the strength of a the computer at all. >> This is like kasparov playing Yermo in a match. We need an average GM. It will >>still be fun though > >Charles, I'm not sure that you have assessed the strength of Hiarcs 7 properly; >but in any event the match will tell all. I assume that if Hiarcs 7 wins the >match or draws you would then be willing to conclude that in all probability >Hiarcs 7 deserves to be rated at GM strength, right. If Hiarcs is really only a >2480-2510 program, Mr. Yermolinsky would be expected to score 4-2. However if >the program is operating at 2600 + on my system, he should be no better than >even money to hold the draw. I expect that the performance rating for Hiarcs 7, >based on this match, will be FIDE elo 2600 +, which would imply a 3 score or >higher for Hiarcs in this six game match. > >Regards, >Matt Frank What can you conclude from a Yermo/Hiarcs7 3.5-2.5 score? I would think that this would show that Hiarcs7 is strong, but would not be enough evidence to conclude that it was at GM strength (since Yermo may just be playing for the minimal win). What can you conclude from a Yermo/Hiarcs7 6-0 score? Hiarcs7 is not GM strength (yet). What can you conclude from a Yermo/Hiarcs7 3-3 or better score? Hiarcs7 is GM strength since it drew or won in standard time against a very strong GM. It would appear that you can only infer that Hiarcs7 is GM strength if it wins or draws. And you can only infer that it is not GM strength if it loses badly. Anything in between is only evidence of a strong program, nothing more. IMO KarinsDad
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.