Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:24:17 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 07:01:13, Chris Carson wrote: >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. This sounds interesting to me. It looks possible to arrange such games for programs. Following the FIDE standards, IOGM (Inofficial Grand Master) and IOIM (Inofficial International Master)- titles could be achieved by chess programs. Then the results would speak for themselves. Another issue is that the performance of a specific program can differ tremendously in a sample of important games vs human title holders. Progs play a different kind of chess than humans do. Much weaker in some areas - stronger in others. Sometimes patzer - sometimes genius. It's up to the humans trying to exploit this. And ,as said, the results and the achieved rating would then speak for themselves. Sune > >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.