Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:23:16 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 01:15:13, Peter Kappler wrote:
>
>Most of us agree that the top human players are still quite a bit stronger than
>any commercial chess program at regular tournament time controls (40/2).
>
>It is also not debatable that as the time control gets faster, the relative
>strength of the computers increases. And this leads to my question:
>
>At what speed are the computers clearly stronger? How fast would the game have
>to be for you to put your money on a top-micro instead of a top GM like Kasparov
>or Anand?
>
>Here are my opinions:
>
>40/2 super-GM wins pretty easily.
>G/60 super-GM, but the games are interesting.
>G/15 super-GM, but now the games are very well-fought.
>G/5 super-GM, but I would be nervous about my money...
>G/3 computer
Hard to say. Depends on the length of the match and of course the player's form.
In 5-6 games, I'd give the micro a clear nod anyhow, but in 20 games I think the
Super GM would come out on top. Of course, it also depends on the micro. Throw
the thing on an Digital Alpha and I'll bet all my chips on the machine. The
biggest problem with g/3 and g/5 especially, is the time lost making the move. A
player like Hawkeye (IM Schmaltz) or Dlugy (GM Dlugy) from ICC are monstrous g/1
players (you have to see them to believe it. No pieces hanging and they actually
play chess) but they can NEVER compete against a program because every move they
make will lose time and is therefore a death warrant. Curiously I don't think
that in g/1 comps play much better than them. They don't hang pieces as well,
but they don't see very far and here the GM's positional instincts might become
a factor.
Albert Silver
>G/1 computer by a mile
>
>
>This might make a good poll question...
>
>
>--Peter
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.