Author: odell hall
Date: 22:22:59 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 23:36:40, James Robertson wrote: >On October 16, 1999 at 14:38:56, odell hall wrote: > >[snip] > >> First of all I don't know of anyone that is claiming programs are 2600+ at >>40/2. > > >What about Larry Kaufman? What about Kasparov? You brought these two's opinions >up many times before we had actual games.... > >James > > I don't believe that Kaufman has ever said 2600, although he has said that they were grandmaster strength. Kasparov said that they were 2600, and he may be right. He mainly deals with Fritz, and Junior, these programs have not been tested and may well be 2600. Ofcourse if you are one of the people that would like to rate all computers based on the result of rebel, then ofcourse you will disagree. > >>The projections I have heard was 2500+. And since Rebel is very near that >>rating now, I don't see why this is considered so rediculous. You state that you >>"believe" the rating would drop if the match was repeated seven times. Can you >>give some statistics or evidence to back this up? Frankly the idea that humans >>somehow are going to improve 100 pts against humans over time is somewhat >>suspect to me. Could you give me a specific example of what you mean? Are you >>saying the human for instance will discover some weakness in how the program >>handles the kings indian, or sicilian and thus exploit that weakness? I guess >>this whole idea is unclear. Since the computers book will navigate it around >>many of these problems I really cannot see what you mean.
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.