Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:55:13 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 16:45:19, ShaktiFire wrote: [snip] >Yes. But to be precise, you have to ask what the definition of >GM is. If it is a title, only granted by performing to a certain >standard in tournament play, sanctioned by FIDE, etc. Then Deep Junior >is not a GM. I think this is a major point of contention, and it is good that you bring it up. I think to be a GM, you should possess all the qualities that are needed to become a GM. Look at the big struggles of Waitkin to get there. Now, I don't think it has to be officially recognized. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." If a program can perform on a given level, then it has done so -- officially recognized or not. Like a man who could jump 30 feet, if they measured it even though not at an AAU sanctioned meet, it is still 30 feet of jumping. >The question is: Do computers play at GM level in standard time play? > >Your answer: maybe is a correct answer. > >However, your view that there is not enough information to answer the question >is dubious. > >Chris Carson has documented dozens of games at standard time control >of computer play vs. GMs. > >I won't knit pick...this or that program, this or that hardware. I will nitpick. Suppose we gather 30 players at 60 meets and pick out their games. Did we form a GM out of them? Not at all. >But in the last 2 years, dozens of games have been played. Computers >vs. GMs at standard time control. > >Ratings can be calculated with these games. The more games played, >the less uncertainty in the rating. The rating indicated, based >on these dozens of games is over 2500. > >Does over 2500 rating, based many games, indicate "GM level of play". > >Maybe. Here I will agree. But to be a GM an ELO of 2500 is not enough. In fact, you can go and look at FIDE's list and you will surely see some players who have a 2500 ELO and yet are not GM's. I think this may be a big definition problem also. To me, "GM level of play" is not an incident -- it is a state of being. It requires continued excellence. If a program flaw is revealed such that the computer can be beaten 100%, then it is not of GM strength. I doubt that such a hole exists, but it might.
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.