Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:30:00 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 09:58:44, Mark Young wrote: >On June 20, 2001 at 08:57:24, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 20, 2001 at 08:16:36, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On June 20, 2001 at 04:38:01, odell hall wrote: >>> >>>>HI CCC >>>> >>>> Since I believe it has been established that the Conflict Concerning The >>>>Computer GM question boils down to a question of semantics, or the relationship >>>>betweeen words and their meanings, i would like to add a thought. >>>>Perhaps what Doctor Hyatt and others are saying is that Computers UNDERSTANDING >>>>of Chess is at the 2350-2400 level, Although they may, or may not be Grandmaster >>>>Strength. Personally i would agree with many here if they formed the statement >>>>in that Context, i believe computers understand Chess actually at the 2100 >>>>Level, but they play chess at the Grandmaster LEVEL, this is because they have >>>>certain talents that Humans Lack, mainly the ability to accurately count >>>>variations. So maybe we are all agreeing, but not to the wording, or meanings >>>>of defintions. I am sure, mark and chris carson would agree that computers >>>>understanding of chess is at the 2100 level or lower. But they are able to >>>>produce Grandmaster level play, because of other talents which is unique to >>>>Computers? Does this make sense to anyone? >>> >>>Good post, I agree with most of what you said. It is clear that computers are >>>playing at a GM level. Titles and Understanding don't mean anything. All the >>>understanding in the world means nothing if you can not beat the "idiot" >>>computers. no matter what the excuse may be. Results have always been the >>>standard of understanding in chess. No one gives a rats ass if Chris, Bob, or I >>>understand something more about chess then some GM or IM, because we are not >>>winners at a high level. In chess it always comes down to results. >> >>Mark, >> >>You have done a great job with your research and analysis on this topic. I am >>surprised that some of your opponents would not even do the analysis, but asked >>you to do it, which you did. :) >> >>One other thing bothers me, perhaps this bothers you to. No progrma has the GM >>Title, but no program has an IM or FM title from FIDE either. Why do so many >>say that progrmas are IM? > >It is worse then that Chris.... > >I. Why do Bob and others say computers are Grandmasters at 5 min. chess? > >II. Why do Bob and others say computers are Grandmasters at 30 min. Chess? > >III. Why do Bob and others say computers are International Masters at 40/2hr. >Chess. > >I will tell you why for I. and II. and its the RESULTS. The beat many >Grandmasters and have a high rating. > >The answer for III. is simple Hypocrisy. > >And that is what infuriates me, and its intellectual hypocrisy, the results show >them to be Grandmasters at 40/2 hour, but instead of admitting this they commit >intellectual hypocrisy again by calling them International Masters. > >It is blatant hypocrisy for them to call computers GM?s at 5 min and 30 min >chess, but then site Fide standards for 40/2hours, but Fide has no Titles at all >for 5 min and 30 min chess, you can not earn titles at fast time control games. >They only base this on results?..and that is Hypocrisy when computers have >proven themselves in the same way at 40/2hours. > >Q: Does anyone know what standard the chess program Belle was awarded $5000 for >being the first computer to reach master strength? First, I don't remember it being awarded any $5,000 prize. I can ask Ken if someone thinks that really happened. Second, it _did_ receive the "USCF Life Master" certificate at the 1983 WCCC event in New York City. I was there. It earned that by playing in USCF rated tournaments and producing an official USCF rating of 2208, without "excluding" any games or events where it did poorly. IE it was just like Cray Blitz, and all the others.. official members of USCF, playing in official USCF sanctioned events, and producing the requisite 2200 or above rating. > >Q: How does this standard compare to my standard for saying that a computer is >now a grandmaster level program? The rules are different. In the USCF, to become a master, you simply have to get your rating over 2200. Nothing else. In FIDE, to become a GM, you have to get your rating over 2500 _and_ produce a 2600+ TPR over a bunch of games. pretty simple, really... > >I know Bob Hyatt knows the answer. > > Sure do... given above. > >> >>Also, if we were to make a truly Human Title comparison, then I think the >>Fidelity Mark III/IV has earned the USCF title of Master. I think this is the >>highest title any machine has earned. The Mark IV must then be the champ of all >>the titled machines and my Mark III second (wow, no need to compare ratings, >>Titles rule). Obviously the Mark IV has 2300+ knowledge, it has the official >>title, this machine must obviously be years ahead of any other program that has >>not recieved the title and no un-titled human or program can compare to the Mark >>IV. >> >>I ofcourse disagree with the improtance of Title comparison, results count. >>Average GM 2521. Average program on 486 to super SMP hw over 2525, >>programs on 500Mhz and faster are over 2550, 866Mhz and faster are above 2625 >>and fastest SMP's are above 2650, top performance 2702 against 2702 competition >>(I would love to see a 2100 club player do that). :) >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson
This page took 0.01 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.