Author: Pete Galati
Date: 17:00:44 07/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2000 at 19:48:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 14, 2000 at 19:42:08, Pete Galati wrote: >[snip] >>But as Dann noted "If the message is only to one person, then use email." If >>this is a question that you'd like only Bob to give input on, then you don't >>want to ask the question in a forum where several people will see it and respond >>to it. If you email him, make sure you you up the spelling on his name btw. >> >>Now for my 2 cents, since this is a forum. Grandmaster is a title. If I had >>played a few games that could be concidered GM strength (I didn't btw) then that >>would by no means make me GM strength, it would only mean that I played a few >>good games. Same thing with the computer program Dp Junior. It wasn't enough >>games to win it a GM title, so it's not GM strength. > >I'm not sure that I would go that far, or at least I would say "It's not >*proven* to be of GM strength." That would be a better way to word it. The rather long process of becoming a GM, there has not been an equiv measure to be able to say that Dp Junior is GM strength. But I do consider Dortmund an important piece of history. I'm glad Dp Junior did that well. > >You can say "It's not a GM" because it has not satisfied the FIDE requirements." >(not even informally, since FIDE may not really recognize what is achieved). > >But I think the evidence leans towards DJ on that machine being of GM strength. >Given enough games, we'll know for sure. I think GM's will learn to play >against computers a lot better. They will study the attacks that work against >them. But at _some_ point, computers _will_ cross the GM line and won't be >turned back. If that point is already here is open to debate. It's good to learn new skills. Pete
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.