Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:43:08 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 12:15:28, Uri Blass 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. > >Deep thought at that time was maybe GM strength. > Poor wording on my part. "personal computer programs". As in mass-market. The hardware was simply too slow. Deep Thought was a different kind of animal... >Other programs were weaker than it at that time but they clearly had chances >against GM's a 2200 player has chances. I have seen them win occasional games from GM players in events like the US Open. > >I remember that Fritz3 on P90 drew against 3 GM's in a tournament near 1995(it >may be 1994 and I am not sure exactly) and it got the IM norm in that >tournament(it had bigger problems against weaker players who prepared more >against it and not against the GM's) > > They are now clearly playing at that >>level, thanks to great advances in hardware speed from 1995. > >I think that if we talk about 120/40 time control then about half of the >improvement from 1995 is from software. > >If you give programs of 1995 the hardware of today then it is not clear if they >can win against program of today with the hardware of 1995. No, but I'll bet most programs of 1995 would do about as well against humans on today's hardware as current programs. > > But they are not >>quite super-GM (2700+) yet, unless you talk about very pricey hardware. Not a >>$500 home computer. > >We do not have evidence to say that they are not(2700+) Nor do we have any evidence that says they are, either... > >I remember that tiger14 on a slow hardware(I think something near 1000ghz) >already achieved performance of more than 2700 and tiger14 is not the best >software. A "performance rating of 2700" and "a 2700-level player" are two different things entirely. > >Of course you can claim that the humans did not play anti-computer but the fact >is that we do not have evidence to say something and unfortunately it seems that >humans have not big motivation to get good results(otherwise they could >play in better anti-computer style). > >The only way to know is if fide is going to allow computers to play in >tournaments and get fide rating and unfortunately I do not expect it to happen. > >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.