Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 21:36:41 01/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2000 at 21:50:02, Albert Silver wrote: >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 Ambiguous isn't quite the word i think, sort of non sequitor or bullheaded seems to fit better "2500 yes, but I won't say PC programs are of grandmaster strength until they can hold their own against grandmasters."(paraphrase). 2500 on 500Mhz at that 2500 is holding their own(what about on a Gigahertsz machine? Even if such a machine gave only 5-10 points and comps were at the bare bone flat 2500 then they would be higher rated by your reasoning than several if not many GMs. In fact what most of us here have been looking for, is not for comps to hold their own but actually beat GM's we've seen them "hold their own"(draw) more than enough. >> >>>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 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.