Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:20:34 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 1998 at 09:37:24, Shaun Graham wrote: >On July 14, 1998 at 22:04:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 14, 1998 at 19:39:46, Shaun Graham wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 1998 at 11:06:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 1998 at 01:48:00, Shaun Graham wrote: >>>> >>>>>On J >>>>>> >>>>>>Your logic is broken and you are using a circular argument here. You *can not* >>>>>>play games against a GM "anonymously". It isn't done. Not in FIDE, not in the >>>>>>USCF nor in any other chess federation. >>>>> >>>>>No offense Mr. Hyatt but you don't even know what a circular arguement is. It >>>>>is an arguement with a structure similar to the following. >>>> >>>>this is also circular: >>>> >>>>if we could play games against a GM without the GM knowing that he is playing >>>>a computer then fritz could be a GM. But it is impossible to play a GM without >>>>his knowing his opponent. But if we could play games against a GM without the >>>>GM knowing that he is playing a computer then fritz could be a GM. But it is >>>>impossible... >>> >>>Firstly this is a construction that you have writen and compares with nothing >>>that i spoke of. >>>> >>>>looks like a circle, smells like a circle, feels like a circle... by golly it >>>>is a circle. Your pre-condition is impossible, so your conclusion is >>>>improbable. >>>> >>>I really wish you would stop attempting to alter what has been said with what >>>you would have liked to have been said, for the purposes of allowing you the >>>possibility to actually have a decent arguement. >>>> >> >>I didn't alter a thing. You said "Fritz could earn a GM norm if it were able >>to play where a GM didn't know he was playing Fritz." > >First of all i never said that, i said the odds would predict that playing in >tournaments anonymously fritz would get the norm. You can't get a norm by >playing 1 grandmaster. > > I said "that is >>impossible, because the only way to earn a GM norm is to play in a FIDE- >>sanctioned tournament, and you can't play a program in such a tournament >>anonymously. > >Look at what you are saying. No one said that fritz was going to play >anonymously, it was said that the likleyhood is that fritz playing on the swiss >circuit would be able to achieve the requiremnts for the norm. As to him >actually getting the norm is not a question because norms aren't awarded to >computers. You know that the only question here is about strength, not about >titles. Please get your facts straight. about 9 years ago FIDE created a "computer" entry. Only problem is it costs a bundle to register a computer entry. But a computer can become a playing member of FIDE and earn norms and titles according to FIDE's policy. However, there is nothing in their policy that says that every event must allow computers. But anyone can put together a FIDE event and include computers if they want. > >You can cough up $10,000 for a FIDE membership, and then fight >>to get into a FIDE tournament because they are not required to let computers >>play there, but you will *never* be allowed to enter an "anonymous" player. > >This is not about what somebody will do, it's only about what would be REQUIRED >to test the strength of a program against standard chess play. I understand that. But you want to call this program a "GM". That is wrong. Because it would not play according to the FIDE rules, and not doing so, it would not be playing what everyone would call "FIDE chess" and earning a "FIDE GM norm." *that* is the problem... >> >>So what part of your statement did I alter? > > >Answer your own question you are the one who altered it after all.
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.