Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 16:06:17 06/15/01
Jose Carlos wrote: >Everytime this kind of argument arises, I have the same impression: There's a >problem of definition. What do we call 'GM strength'? > > A. If we speak of 'quality' of chess (whatever this can mean), most chess > players will probably agree to one of these possibilities: > A.1. Computers are not GM strength because they show lack of understanding > too many times to be considered GM's. This is a tricky call. Who defines 'understanding' a game? This is a subjective measure. I can think of two examples to illustrate this: a) on Tim Krabbe's pages he sometimes has the topic 'computers can't play chess' and demonstrates positions where the computer does really awful things (in his eyes) So 'computers can't play chess'. On the other hand in his analysis he sometimes refers to a move found by the computer. Often this is a good move the human would have a lot of trouble finding. 'Humans can't play chess?' b) my own program plays several variants which it has very little understanding of. In one variant is just picks the move that offers it the most options not to get mated. In another the only heuristic it has is 'put pieces near the opponents king'. In a way it does not understand the game at all, by human standards. Yet it is at the same level of top human players. It makes awfull moves by human standards. Yet it often wins with those moves. > A.2. Computers and humans do not compare (like the soldier and the tank). I think this holds a lot of truth. > B. If we speak of 'quantities' (namely ELO rating), we can certainly compare > humans and programs, and say _with numbers_ if programs perform like GM's > or not. This assumes you can express GM in term of an ELO rating. I do not think that is possible, or at least has any meaning. -- GCP
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.