Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:30:57 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 06:59:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>On June 16, 2001 at 06:14:47, Bill Gletsos wrote:
>
>>If you want to claim a computer is a GM let the computer earn the GM title just
>>like any human would have to.
>>
>>Clearly a player is a GM because they meet the necessary FIDE Title criteria
>>not because they have a 2500 rating. GM's didnt get their titles because of
>>their rating but due to meeting a set of criteria that established them as
>>being of as
>>some of you would call it "GM strength". In general this criteria requires them
>>to get 2 or more GM "norms" in events covering at least 24 games(30 games
>>without a round robin or Olympiad) and a rating of at least 2500(within 7 years
>>of acheiving the first GM norm). These events have to be valid Title events.
>
>This will make it quite problematic for a computer to ever get a GM
>norm simply because most players wil refuse to play it.
Heck, I remember lively discussions of strong players (Fide Masters and IMs)
towards playing against computers when the computers in question were the
Fidelity Excellence (rated 1750 Elo) and the Par Excellence (rated 1850 - in
France BTW). It was a 7 round open, and about half refused to play the machines.
Of course, if they had hoped to draw attention to themselves with this protest,
they were outdone in the 4th round when a local 1700 player, who WASN'T playing
a computer, started having a fit because he claimed the Excellence was emanating
waves that were interfering with his play. :-)) BTW, he wasn't joking either.
Albert
>Also you are
>not going to find much valid title events where computers are allowed.
>The performance of the computer will depend a lot on how prepared the
>humans are to play it.
>
>The 'rating of at least 2500' is also problematic for reasons which have
>been stated already.
>
>Unless FIDE will suddenly treat computers like humans when entering into
>events and enters them in the rating lists, and waits a few years for
>the new ratings pool to stablilize and all humans learn about their new
>opponents, you are going to have an unfair situation.
>
>Even then, the only thing you will be able to say is that computers
>perform at the same level as humans when playing tournaments.
>
>I agree with Bruce that comparing humans and GM's is like comparing
>soldiers and tanks.
>
>--
>GCP
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.