Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 08:22:39 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
> >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. > Bob, I agree with you completely if the opponent is "some GM". But, I think it is sometimes easy to forget just how much stronger the "super-GMs" like Kasparov and Anand are in comparison to the average GM. The rating differential is around 200 points. Maybe we could look at the performance of some of these "average" GMs against Crafty at blitz and determine if an extra 200 ELO points might have changed the result in the humnan's favor. Crafty's destruction of Hawkeye yesterday certainly sheds some doubt on my G/5 prediction, as Hawkeye is probably a better blitz player than most GMs. --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.