Author: Baldomero Garcia, Jr.
Date: 19:24:56 12/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
1. I don't think computers are of GM strength. Imagine an IM who wins and draws every once in a while against GMs. That in itself does not make him a GM. He has to show GM strength by obtaining norms in 3 different tournaments (at least one round robin) and maintain a certain rating (I don't remember exactly what that rating is). I think the data shown thus far is too small to say for certain that a computer is GM strength. I'm rated 1997. I've won against several masters and tied a few also. But that doesn't mean I'm master strength. 2. I'm not sure who said that computers were not USCF master strength, but I think they are stronger than that. I think there used to be some computer rating agency that allowed computers to play in tournaments and after a certain number of games, the computer would get a rating. Some of those ratings were of master strength. And that happened several years ago. So, in order to prove that a computer program is GM strength, you need a lot of time and money to gather the human players to play against them in tournaments. Even then, FIDE will not award titles to computers (since they have a huge advantage of using stored information while they play). From the AEGON tournaments and the Harvard Cup tournaments, did any computers achieve a "norm"? (assuming they could get one). Baldo.
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.