Author: Jeff Anderson
Date: 01:31:05 07/15/00
For a long time I have observed the debate in this forum, "Are Computers GM strength in tournament time controls?" or some such thing. This is question is impossible to answer unless we define what is meant by "GM Strength". To answer the question do we disect the programs play or the programs results? I assert that the only way to aswer the question is through the results of the top programs. Some critics of the belief that the top computer chess programs are GM strength, such as Robert Hyatt, argue that 'the computer makes this move that no GM or even a class player would make', or that 'the computer lost in a fashion which I very rarely see a GM lose in', or that the computer 'lacked a plan' or 'demonstrated a clear lack of chess understanding'. But these arguments are silly. It is true that in some positions the computer will play weaker than in others, but this is just its style. If these defects were serious enough that the program would not be considered GM strength, then the porgrams opponents would prevent it from demonstrating GM results. Despite errors in certain types of positions the computers have demonstrated a clear ability to demonstrate GM results. The computers are GM strength. A top program on good hardware will not perform below GM level in a standard time control tournament of humans ever again. Jeff
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.