Author: odell hall
Date: 20:26:59 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 23:07:59, Michael Neish wrote: >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. Ok I don't know exactly how Larry kaufman calculated the 65 pts difference going from 30 0 to 40\2, , but I see no reason to doubt him, his reputation is impecabble, and he is both a programmer and a very strong chess player. What it boils down to is no one can really say for sure how much of a difference it is going from 60 0 to 40/2 but I know one thing for sure it is not the 300 pts that Robert Hyatt is projecting, common sense shows me that much. I think 65-100 pts is more reasonable, this is ofcourse a guess, but my guess is as good as anyoneelse's .
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.