Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:40 06/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 1999 at 09:58:14, Harald Faber wrote: >On June 22, 1999 at 13:39:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>Right now we are at computers 3, humans 5, in our 8 game 40/2hr series of >>>>games. That _might_ mean the computers are at the lower GM level. It also >>>>might mean that they are at super-GM level. Or it might mean they were somewhat >>>>lucky. Untill we have enough games, we don't know. If we had a score of 15-5, >>>>I think the conclusion would be pretty accurate (assuming 15 for humans) that >>>>the computers are 200 points worse (ie 2400). If we had 10-10, I'd think that >>>>we would conclude that the computers were reasonably close to 2600, although >>>>there is still a significant margin of error for only 20 games. >>>> >>>>Or we could have a vote. That will decide it, right? :) >>> >>>A reason why you don't count Hiarcs-Hergott? >> >>yes... games were not 40/2, games were held in a mall. Hergott is a weaker >>IM. It was so noisy he had to wear headphones.. >>etc... > >1) IM is IM; who gives the right and is able to judge WEAK or STRONG? Even a >WEAK IM is still an IM. >2) Hiarcs WON. Although it was only 6 games. But 6 games plus 6 games >plus...plus... someday make a bunch. >3) I guess it was Fischer who said: "the only ones with no excuses when they >lose against me are computers." Doesn't matter. You don't earn a GM norm playing an IM in a match. So trying to answer the question "are computers at GM level?" is not going to be answered by playing an IM in a noisy mall at non-40/2 time controls... And hiarcs did win... but aren't we discussing 40/2hr time controls here? The hiarcs/Hergott match was not 40/2. So it all seems totally unrelated to the question being asked...
This page took 0.01 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.