Eraserheads wrote:Yes, but rating 2790 in the SSDF list, for example, is not the same as 2790 FIDE. These are two different pools, and one needs to merge the two pools together to have a more accurate comparative assessment between players belonging from the two groups.
Computer rating lists are totally meaningless in that regard.
They usually are calibrated with engines that played on slow hardware for today's standards.
As a consequence we see a much higher rating inflation compared to FIDE.
In games against humans it most probably would not make any notable difference whether an engine plays on 2 or 4 cores. I guess it would make a difference in less than 0.1% of the games played.
There is also the question of style. The weird playing style of a Junior 7 for example might very well be quite effective against strong humans OTB, while Junior 7 gets totally destroyed by any of the top engines today.
The discussion seems pointless to me anyway. Chess is a game for humans, computer programs are just tools.
Enir wrote:
One can argue that human ELO and computer ELO are not comparable. But I think they do indicate a very big difference in strength.
For instance, imagine that Rybka on an eight way machine would give a simultaneous exhibition in Bilbao against the six participants. What result would you predict? In my opinion, Rybka wouldn't lose a game and could probably win 2 to 4, for a total score 4-2 to 5-1. This was also the result predicted by some people I talked with about this.
i think so to
just look at the Adams v Hydra match
Adams was the 7th highest rated human on the Fide list at the time of the match and he could only manage 1 draw
and Hydra then.. could possibly be beaten by Rybka 3 today
the lists are different but if combined i fear it would not be very pretty for the humans
Sobering Thought Regards
Steve
Adams is an 1.e4/1...e5 player. No wonder he got destroyed.
Eraserheads wrote:Yes, but rating 2790 in the SSDF list, for example, is not the same as 2790 FIDE. These are two different pools, and one needs to merge the two pools together to have a more accurate comparative assessment between players belonging from the two groups.
Computer rating lists are totally meaningless in that regard.
They usually are calibrated with engines that played on slow hardware for today's standards.
As a consequence we see a much higher rating inflation compared to FIDE.
In games against humans it most probably would not make any notable difference whether an engine plays on 2 or 4 cores. I guess it would make a difference in less than 0.1% of the games played.
There is also the question of style. The weird playing style of a Junior 7 for example might very well be quite effective against strong humans OTB, while Junior 7 gets totally destroyed by any of the top engines today.
The discussion seems pointless to me anyway. Chess is a game for humans, computer programs are just tools.
Hehehe,a quite good joke I assume....
The humans are nearly total patzers nowadays compared to the top chess engines....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri Blass wrote:What is the source of the claim that he is playing with a flu?
I don't think he actually has a case of influenza. If he's still sick then whatever it is seems to be lasting quite awhile.
I think it might be a fake flu. He seems to be sick all the time, he probably wants people to say things like "he lost because he was sick", "he scored 3.5/4 even when he was sick" etc..
Tony Thomas wrote:
I think it might be a fake flu. He seems to be sick all the time, he probably wants people to say things like "he lost because he was sick", "he scored 3.5/4 even when he was sick" etc..
Eraserheads wrote:Yes, but rating 2790 in the SSDF list, for example, is not the same as 2790 FIDE. These are two different pools, and one needs to merge the two pools together to have a more accurate comparative assessment between players belonging from the two groups.
Computer rating lists are totally meaningless in that regard.
They usually are calibrated with engines that played on slow hardware for today's standards.
As a consequence we see a much higher rating inflation compared to FIDE.
In games against humans it most probably would not make any notable difference whether an engine plays on 2 or 4 cores. I guess it would make a difference in less than 0.1% of the games played.
There is also the question of style. The weird playing style of a Junior 7 for example might very well be quite effective against strong humans OTB, while Junior 7 gets totally destroyed by any of the top engines today.
The discussion seems pointless to me anyway. Chess is a game for humans, computer programs are just tools.
Hehehe,a quite good joke I assume....
The humans are nearly total patzers nowadays compared to the top chess engines....
yes of course it must be a joke
all the more amazing is that the post and its obvious attempt at humor was actually computer generated and not really written by a human
