Author: Albert Silver
Date: 18:50:02 01/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2000 at 18:49:53, Charles Unruh wrote:
> rt Silver
>>>
>>>Hi Albert,
>>>
>>>I am OK with you disagreeing with me - but please allow me to put forward some
>>>evidence to support my case.
>>
>>If you didn't, what would I possibly have to disagree with? :-)
>>
>>>
>>>Firstly, from where you've made your interjection, I assume that the point that
>>>you disagree with is that computers would be expected to score about 80 Elo
>>>points higher at active time controls than at tournament time controls. Please
>>>correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>Now, Selective Search magazine has been published since 1985 (the web site is
>>>http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk/ ).
>>>
>>>I can't remember when, but in the past, an in-depth study of how different clock
>>>settings affect the expected rating of a computer was published. In the current
>>>issue (Dec '99 - Jan '00), as they do in every year end issue, they have
>>>published summary tables of expectations how different time controls affect the
>>>expected outcome. As everyone knows, computers will do relatively better at
>>>faster time controls than human players will. Briefly, the results are as
>>>follows:
>>>
>>>Tournament Chess: Normal
>>>Active Chess (G/30): +80 Elo
>>>Blitz Chess (G/5 or G/10): +200 Elo
>>>
>>>Selective Search was originally set up with the specific aim in mind of
>>>providing more accurate information to chess computer consumers about the
>>>strength of the machines, so they take the issue very seriously. At the present
>>>time, their highest rating for a chess computer is 2620
>>
>>I'm sure they are very serious, but that doesn't make them right. I have never
>>had the opportunity to read their publication, but as I understand it, their
>>ratings include the SSDF ratings. As I don't think the SSDF ratings have any
>>value towards deciding the relative strength of computers against humans, the
>>very basis of their ratings becomes valueless in my opinion. Any calculations
>>made from them would be equally futile, with all due respect. You want my gut
>>feeling? On a 500 Mhz PC, the programs in 40/2 are playing a little over 2500.
>
>A little over 2500 woul be what most all of us here would consider grandmaster
>strength.
I understand. It does seem ambiguous of me to say this. Essentially, time will
tell, but I won't say PC programs are of grandmaster strength until they can
hold their own against grandmasters.
Albert Silver
>
>>They are outstandingly consistent in what they do, but conceptual chess will
>>still be our greatest weapon against them. Conceptual positionally, and
>>conceptual tactically. That's why some combinations, though relatively simple to
>>calculate are beyond them for the moment.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>>
>>
>>>(though they state that
>>>up to 60 Elo points could be added if one posseses a 500 Mhz PC).
>>>
>>>I'll leave it at that for now - but if this isn't good enough, I suppose I'm
>>>going to have to rummage through my pile of old issues to look for the original
>>>article about how these calculations were made.
>>>
>>>-g
>>>
>>>>> , then we must be saying
>>>>>that right now the computers are about 2620 Elo - which isn't bad (if a little
>>>>>lower than the 2664 - 2674 that SSDF seem to be saying Tiger can achieve).
>>>>>
>>>>>-g
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.