Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 08:59:00 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 10:35:34, Richard Heldmann wrote: >On November 20, 2005 at 21:19:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 20, 2005 at 20:56:42, Sherry Windsor wrote: >> >>>Dr Hyatt now admits reluctantly that computers are now GM strength, >>>unfortunately he is still stubbornly stating that they are not over 2600? To me >>>this looks very prejudicial. I think they are easily playing at the 2750 level. >> >>Define "computers". >> >>Do you mean a big multi-cpu opteron, or a single-cpu home system? >> >>There is a huge difference... >> >>I don't admit anything "reluctantly". In 1995 when this discussion started, >>computers were nowhere near GM strength. They are now clearly playing at that >>level, thanks to great advances in hardware speed from 1995. But they are not >>quite super-GM (2700+) yet, unless you talk about very pricey hardware. Not a >>$500 home computer. > Remember our discussion about this a couple of months ago? Those tournaments in Argentina were played on very slow hardware (<<$500) by today's standards and the average performance rating of the computers in those events was around 2700 (computed over ~40 games). I think this is compelling evidence. Can you produce any evidence to the contrary? -Peter >In the current man vs machine match in the city of Bilbao, Spain, Alexander >Khalifman vs Fritz 9(Bilbao) running at 1.6 million positions per second on a 2 >GHz Centrino notebook, Alexander Khalifman lost in 39 moves. Ruslan Ponomariov >vs Deep Junior 9.1 searching 6,300,000 positions per second on a dual core AMD >machine was also no competition. Hydra, the only pricey hardware, had the >closest match, but still beat Rustam Kasimdzhanov. > >See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2747
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.