Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:53:14 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? > I would ammend these as follows: >Here are my opinions: > >40/2 super-GM wins pretty easily. [agree] >G/60 super-GM, but the games are interesting. [agree] >G/15 super-GM, but now the games are very well-fought. [I think the machine would probably win here] >G/5 super-GM, but I would be nervous about my money... [not a chance] >G/3 computer [ditto] >G/1 computer by a mile [ditto] > by 'not a chance' I mean I don't think the human would have a chance if the match is of significant length (not 1 game). I base this on Crafty's history on ICC. Try 'search +=crafty -=some_gm' and then reverse the + and - to get its losses against the same player. We have also played a fair number of game/15 and game/30 type events in the last few years, and the computers have been very strong. In one particular event on chess.net, 4 computers, 4 humans, in a 'round robin, humans vs computers' the 4 computers finished above all of the 4 humans, time control was game/30, and all the humans were GM players. > >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.