Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:57:03 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 08:24:17, Sune Larsson wrote: >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 Yes, I think there is money to be made, I think the matches themselves might generate some revenue, many people would like to see the results (PGN's) and even witness the events live. :) I also think this is a chance for the GM's to make some deserved money from playing. They deserve to be involved with this and to make a living. :) To me it looks like a win-win. The sponsors make money, the programmers get to advertise based on results/titles, the GM's get paid, the consumer gets to buy based on HvC and CvC results, and we get to see a lot of great games. :) I also think that in the near future (5 years), unless something changes, it will be a prestigeous thing to beat the computers in a match. :) 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.