Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 06:50:34 07/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On July 16, 2000 at 07:59:44, Alberto Rezza wrote: >Yes. So the problem is: how much confidence do we need in the chess programs' >strength? Are 300 games not enough? Depending on the confidence you want, you need a different number of games. [The exact formula is an exercise to the reader. ;)] > If we were to apply such standards to human players, we would have to >conclude that when a player gets a GM title from FIDE we really cannot say >whether he is of GM strength This is a different case. A human player gets a GM title from FIDE if (s)he reaches 3 GM-norms. (where GM-norm is defined as <whatever>) This clearly defines what a GM is. Now, what you mean with "someone is of GM strength" is simply not defined. Of course it's logical to assume that this is someone who has a similar strength of "some GMs". But since a GM is not defined with his strength but with "reaching 3 GM-norms", the definition is only vague. >A program whose results are good for 3 GM norms has GM strength - and that >should be all. Sounds like a good definition to me. The fact though "that program X beat the sh** out of GM Y in the famous tournament at Z just around the corner" doesn't. :) Regards, -sargon
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.