Author: Mark Young
Date: 07:54:47 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2001 at 10:30:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Bob what Fide standards do you use for calling computers GM's at 5 min and 30 min chess? You want to site the Fide standards for your claim on this, and I will retract my own standards for 40/2hours, and what Fide standard has a computer made for you claim that computers are International masters. Is Bob Hyatt the only one who can come up with his own standards. Very Hypocritical. > > > > > >> >>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.