Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:42:14 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2001 at 12:12:53, Mark Young wrote: >It seems to me the arguments come down to either being for or against some kind >of result base standard for determining GM strength status for computers. > >It is clear to me the only viable standard should be a results based standard. > >Any kind of subjects standard fails because of human ignorance. I’m amazed to >read even here people’s ignorance when it comes to what a Grandmaster is, their >abilities, and overall strength. > >For example Grandmaster’s: >1. Make positional mistakes in all phases of the game. >2. Make tactical mistakes at all time controls. >3 Grandmasters can and do lose or draw games against amateur players in serious >standard time control games. >4.Granmasters play more then one style of chess. There is no standard “human” >way of playing to become a Grandmaster. >5. Grandmaster can and do play “ugly” moves >6. Grandmaster win many lost games do to tactical over sites by their opponents >7 Win very ugly games do to the opponent’s bad judgments. > >There are others examples of a similar nature of course. The point is all these >also apply to computer programs as well, but the above examples have been used >as reason why the computers should never be considered Grandmaster strength >regardless of results. > >Subjective standards have no place in determining GM strength status of >computers. Fide *only* uses a results based standard for awarding GM status to >humans, as any other standard would cause chaos. At least from my point of view, there's absolutely no problem if you use the result-based definition of 'GM strength'. Just let the program play in humans tournaments (or better, let programs and humans play in tournaments making no difference) and, when a program gets the results it needs to receive GM title, you can say that 'the program is GM strength according to result-based definition). No problem at all for me. But, please, repect other people opinion about other definitions of what 'GM strength' means, because yours is not the only valid definition. Is valid IMO, but there're more. The only thing I suggest, when these arguments come to CCC, is that people say what definition are the discussing about. As long as this is clear, the discussions will be more productive. José C.
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.