Author: Michael Neish
Date: 20:54:30 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 23:26:59, odell hall wrote: > 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 . I didn't mean to imply that Kaufman would somehow manufacture his results. I'm sure he made an honest attempt. I'd also like to know whether the 65-point difference is for humans v humans or humans v computers, as both of these would be very different I expect. It's going to be hard to define the precise moment when computers can be said to be stronger than humans at 40/2, or even 60/0 for that matter. I suppose a computer might win a 60/0 tournament and then lose another, win another, lose two, etc. It's going to be a gradual process, so no one will be able to stand up and say "computers are now stronger" and expect full agreement from everyone, until the day comes when computers win all the time. This day will come, but right now it's a grey area. 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.