Author: Martin
Date: 04:20:52 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 23:54:30, Michael Neish wrote:
>
>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.
That's the point, same opinion here. It's quite clear that in some
areas (particularly tactics) computers are much stronger than every
human player including Gary. In many other areas (there are at
least _many_ examples) they're even worse than most average players.
Of course if you're playing a game, tactics is very important but you
also can try to keep your position closed and their superiority in
calculating lines becomes less evident.
Now the main argument is that you can't put those things into
a single number. Sure, it's very easy to compare two elos
("2600 > 2550, so the first guy is stronger") but there's not the
whole truth in it.
Martin
P.S. Btw, 65?? Why not 70??? Or 60? It's - sorry - ridiculous.
>
>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.