Author: Bill Gletsos
Date: 06:17:39 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 08:49:23, Chris Carson wrote: >On June 16, 2001 at 08:20:36, Bill Gletsos 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. >>> >>>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 >> >>Chris >> I think your comments have a lot of merit although I dont necessarily agree >>with you on all of them. >> >>Firstly what I was trying to point out but maybe didnt do too well, was that a >>program should have to meet the same criteria as a human GM. I did not mean to >>imply that FIDE had to grant them a GM title. Therefore if a program could get a >>set of results that would for a human earn the human the GM title then one could >>say the computer has earned the GM title. >> > >We agree on this. :) > >>I note your comment about programs getting a 2642 rating over 49 games but this >>is not for one program is it? If this was by one program then I would be >>inclined to agree with you, because a human with those statistics would most >>likely be given the GM title. >> > >This is a good point, it is different programs. Rebel-Century has the most >games I think and it's total rating is around 2550. With respect to FIDE, they >do say that IM is 2400 rating and GM is 2500 rating (section 1.1 handbook on >ratings) with 2 GM norms above 2600. So the performance must be above 2500 for >24 games plus the two norms. If I am wrong on this, please provide me a >reference and a quote, I do not mean to be, this is what it was the last time I >checked. I am of course only refering to performance and strength when I talk >about programs performaing at a GM level (2500 and above). :) > >FIDE Handbook link on titles: >http://handbook.fide.com/handbook.cgi?level=B&level=01&level=01& I see what your getting at and I read the same section. However I dont interpret that in the same way you do. You have to earn the norms in valid title events. You can do this via a minimum of two tournaments and achieving 2 norms in those tournaments however the total number of games must be at least 24. Thats why a lot of players require 3 norms because they dont meet the 24 game requirement in 2 tournaments. The 2500 rating is the minimum rating. As I said in my initial post lots of players have ratings over 2500 but are not GM's. Its the norms and number of games that are the most important not the rating. Of course you and I could be splitting hairs here over nothing:) Maybe I am just being pedantic although thats not my aim. > >>Also FIDE dont say GM strength is 2500. What they say is a perfomance rating of >>2600 equals a GM norm. In fact back in 1976 a performance rating of 2550 equaled >>a GM norm and a minimum rating of 2450 for the player applied. It was not until >>1980 that the performance rating requirement for a GM norm was made 2600 and not >>until 1988 that the minimum rating became 2500. An IM norm both in 1976 and now >>was a performance rating of 2450 with a minimum rating of 2350. >> >>For those countrys who have talented computer programmers producing Chess >>playing programs it would be nice if the respective federations could try to >>lobby FIDE to include computers in tournaments. After all the decision to ban >>computers was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the FIDE Presidential Board and not >>the General Assembly of FIDE(although they may have since ratified it). >> >>Given FIDE's penchant for wanting to gain sponsorship dollars then if the Deep >>Fritz-Krammnik match orgainised by Braingames catchs the interest of the general >>public perhaps the current FIDE attitude to computers in tournaments could be >>reversed. After all if there is a buck in it I'm sure the FIDE president and his >>friend in FIDE Commerce would be interested:) >> >>The next FIDE congress is later this year. >> >>As you noted we are both entitled to our opinions.:). >> >> >>Best Reagrds, >>Bill > >Finally Bill, you present your arguments very well, I also hope that FIDE might >change their mind. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson Thank you. You expressed yours equally well :) Best Regards, Bill
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.