Author: Michael Neish
Date: 20:07:59 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 22:52:50, odell hall wrote: > Unfortunately you did not address the most important point of my post which is >the Question: How much of a rating increase do humans Gain going from 60 0 to >40/2? According to Larry kaufman human are 65 points stronger going from 30\0 >to 40/2, I expect 60 0 to 40/2 the increase would be even less. The fact that >some grandmasters often spend 20 minutes on a given move doesn't neccessarily >prove that the move will be stronger, often grandmasters spend a hour on a move >to produce a blunder!! I have seen this often. Length does not always mean >Quality. Annand for instance has been known to spend less than 60 minutes for >an entire 40/2 game. Since you believe what I say is "Rubbish" Why don't you >please prove it and supply some concrete evidence which shows a 300pt increase >going from 60 0 to 40/2?? These type of dogmatic statements are taken for >granted as fact because some self-proclaimed know it all has said so, without >any proof. Please show me the proof!! Likewise to you, you quote Kaufman's estimate that humans play 65 points stronger without saying where you heard/read it, and how he calculated it. I think I'll refrain from guessing values based on intuition, which are bound to be wrong, but I don't agree with your argument that thinking longer doesn't necessarily lead to better moves. Of course sometimes GMs blunder after thinking for half-an-hour or longer, but usually they don't. And furthermore, during long thinking times they make a deep strategic plan for the later stages of the game which they cannot do at 60/0 (at least, not so well). This plan gives them direction for the next few moves, something which presumably they don't have at 60/0. And don't forget that at 40/120 the clock is reset after 40 moves and then they can afford another long think if required, which again is impossible at 60/0 where the clock gradually runs out. I think the blunder potential at the later stages of a 60/0 game is huge. On the other hand (to show that I'm trying my best not to be biased in the matter), I think Adams had a lot more time to think yesterday because of internet lag, which would have been an advantage to him -- unless he let the anger go to his head and spent the extra time fuming over the keyboard or pacing the room waving his fists in the air! From TWIC it seems he was suffering from some form of food poisoning, which me must also take into account. I don't see the importance of having to declare loudly and unambiguously that "computers are GMs after all" or "computers are now stronger than humans". Yes, no, so what? It's a simplistic statement anyway, the sort of thing that the media likes, but which anyone who knows anything about the subject ought to dismiss as a red herring (I hope). Cheers, Mike.
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.