Author: Chris Carson
Date: 04:01:13 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 06:14:47, Bill Gletsos wrote: >If you want to claim a computer is a GM let the computer earn the GM title just >like any human would have to. > >Clearly a player is a GM because they meet the necessary FIDE Title criteria not >because they have a 2500 rating. GM's didnt get their titles because of their >rating but due to meeting a set of criteria that established them as being of as >some of you would call it "GM strength". In general this criteria requires them >to get 2 or more GM "norms" in events covering at least 24 games(30 games >without a round robin or Olympiad) and a rating of at least 2500(within 7 years >of acheiving the first GM norm). These events have to be valid Title events. > >There are 548 players over 2500 on the latest FIDE list with another 10 being >rated 2500. > >There are many players on this list rated over 2500 who are not GM's but only >IM's. Some are only even FM's and some have no FIDE title at all, although it >should be noted that the majority of this latter group are from Myanmar. This would be great if FIDE let computers compete in FIDE rated events and would give titles to programs. FIDE has banned all computers from FIDE rated events. Events can not be rated if a program participates, thus no program will ever get the GM norm. This is why this debate rages and will continue to rage. Even before the ban last year, FIDE would never give a GM norm to a program. I personally do not care if a program gets the GM title from FIDE. I am only interested in "playing strength against humans and other programs". Programs have given performances above 2600 (2642 over 49 games in a 3 year period, opponents rated 2548) and over 2500 (2525 over 232 games spaning a 3 year period). All games at 40/2 and against FIDE raated players. FIDE says that GM strength is 2500, the programs are playing above 2600 on a consistant bases on the fastes hardware. I do think that the opportunity is there is some organization (SSDF, Braingames, ...) to grant program titles based on human game performance. Hire a few GM's to play the number of games against the programs (keep the identity of the program a secret until after the tournament). Charge a fee to the program company, if the program gets the norms and rating needed, then it gets the title, same a the human, just a different organization. This would also generate some interest for a continued GM vs DGM (Digital GM) matches, at least until the computers are mostly invincible. Match play this the best chance for humans to beat the machines, this way the human can learn the weakness and play on that. Tournaments are needed to establish a rating. Some people make a valid point that the qulaity of the games (anti-computer strategy) can make the computer look like a 2100 player. For me, results mean more, just my opinion. You are ofcourse entitled to yours. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.