Author: Don Dailey
Date: 06:51:12 07/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 1998 at 08:58:05, Guido Schimmels wrote: > >On July 15, 1998 at 11:08:34, Danniel Corbit wrote: > >>People seem to want to discuss whether or not a computer program is a GM or not. >> >>The FIDE list does not contain any computers. >> >>Computers are not FIDE GM's. >> >>Hence, if we want to talk about computers being GM's or not, we need some new >>kind of definition. >> >>What _exactly_ is a computer GM? >> >>Being able to beat one seems pretty irrelevant to me. I'll bet once in a while >>GM's lose to their kids because they are not paying attention or whatever. >> >>If we do not know what we are discussing, then the discussion seems rather >>pointless. > >I don't see why we need a special definition for computer GM. >Here is an extract of "International Title Regulations of FIDE": > >1.1 Grandmaster: > Obtained by achieving any of the following: > >1.11 (GA '93) Two or more GM results (TPR > 2600 ELO) > in events covering at least 24 games > (30 games without a round robin or Olympiad) > and a rating of at least 2500 in the FIDE Rating List current > at the time the FIDE Congress considers the application, > or within seven years of the first title result being achieved. > >10.1 GM results in tournaments with fewer than three individual GMs are > not valid. > >So a computer is a GM, when it performs consistantly at 2500 Elo level and >achieves TPRs >2600 once in a while. >Probably not true for any of today's micros. > >- Guido - Thanks for the info. I am the only one that "suggested" that perhaps there should be a separate rating. I did this for two reasons. 1. If Fide won't rate computers then it's a title we can never have, therefore it might be useful to have our own. However as I stated, I don't think that will ever happen. 2. Grandmaster is a title that denotes excellence. Excellence is a relative term. If everyone was of Grandmaster strength, then being a Grandmaster would have little meaning and the term should be changed. This applies to both "Grand" and "master." You could argue that master simply denotes mastery and you would be right but I will counter this by saying no human has achieved mastery of chess so it's being misused anyway. The truth of the matter is that for humans, mastery will get redifined in any sport or endeavor to mean "near the top of the field." So it's my strong belief that humans are NOT very close to playing perfect chess. In other words it's possible in my opinion to consistently beat Kasparov (although there is no one alive today who can perform this feat.) At some point, and I won't argue about when, computers will play well above the top humans and the human title Grandmaster will not make any sense. It could even become a derogatory term, meaning your program sucks because it plays like a human grandmaster. So we either live without the title for computers, try to create an equivalent title, or try to create our own title standard, recognizing that humans and computers are not the same. Look in various sports and you will see different standards of excellence applied to different people. It's often separated by age or by sex depending on what the field of endeavor is. My point is that there is s precedence for this, it makes sense. To many it will not make sense but this is because of the coincidence that the top computer players and top human players are not that far away from each other. You simply don't see the need ... yet. Someone suggested that I was talking about having a lower standard for computers. That is not how I feel at all and that person does not know me very well. I am suggesting the standard be HIGHER for computers. Until we reach that goal of "micro grandmaster" I am suggesting that the standard for computers be HIGHER than "entry level" human grandmaster and then surpass it as computers become ever stronger. The whole purpose is set goals of excellence for the developers that the consumer will benefit from too. The term should be reserved for the top of the field. - Don
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.