bigo wrote:Isn't larry in a better position to judge then you? After all what is your ratings 1700? Milov himself said on the rybka page that he believes rybka is playing at 3000 elo, also joel benjamin. And your friend Mr Anti Computer himself Roman said rybka plays stronger then any computer he has faced. I guess all these grandmasters are just talking hyperbole. Garry kasparov said five years ago when you were saying computers play at 2400 that the top programs were in the 2700s. Kramnik said something similiar. After following you in this debate for years, i'm convinced that if God himself said computers were now 3000 you would disagree. Kasparov must have been dead right cause programs like Rebel were drawing Matches at standard time control with 2700 players 5 years ago.
Just read what I wrote. I said that a handicapped match does _not_ necessarily prove _any_ rating at all. It changes the dynamics of the game from an initial equality, to something different, where optimal play is different as well.
Ok then I misunderstood but it seemed to me based on your response to Duncan that you were referring to non handicapped chess am I wrong?
duncan wrote:
regarding regular computer-human games, he said Hydra, earned a 3000 rating against humans in fourteen games.
is that correct ?
"Possible but meaningless. My first tournament, after playing 2 rounds, had me with a rating of over 2600. Because I beat two players rated just over 2200. But I was not a 2600 player in real life".
If you read his previous post you can see that he is questioning Larry's comment that Rybka played 3050 level..He asked how can one say it played at 3050 level when there was a handicap.
I think the very concept of "played at a 3050 level" is ridiculous. First, who can say what that level looks like? second, can an IM recognize play at a level that is 600 points above his own level?
I don't have any opinion about the game or the level of play, Larry would look much wiser if he kept away from the hyperbole himself...
bigo wrote:Isn't larry in a better position to judge then you? After all what is your ratings 1700? Milov himself said on the rybka page that he believes rybka is playing at 3000 elo, also joel benjamin. And your friend Mr Anti Computer himself Roman said rybka plays stronger then any computer he has faced. I guess all these grandmasters are just talking hyperbole. Garry kasparov said five years ago when you were saying computers play at 2400 that the top programs were in the 2700s. Kramnik said something similiar. After following you in this debate for years, i'm convinced that if God himself said computers were now 3000 you would disagree. Kasparov must have been dead right cause programs like Rebel were drawing Matches at standard time control with 2700 players 5 years ago.
Just read what I wrote. I said that a handicapped match does _not_ necessarily prove _any_ rating at all. It changes the dynamics of the game from an initial equality, to something different, where optimal play is different as well.
Ok then I misunderstood but it seemed to me based on your response to Duncan that you were referring to non handicapped chess am I wrong?
duncan wrote:
regarding regular computer-human games, he said Hydra, earned a 3000 rating against humans in fourteen games.
is that correct ?
"Possible but meaningless. My first tournament, after playing 2 rounds, had me with a rating of over 2600. Because I beat two players rated just over 2200. But I was not a 2600 player in real life".
OK, wrong post. And yes, that is what I was responding to there. 14 games is not enough. That's why USCF requires 24 games before the rating becomes "non-provisional". "compuer-shock" is a well-known issue that fades as a program plays more and more games in public...