Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:26:32 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. I agree 100% My question is: what would consitute GM strength by a result based definition? I do not find a minimal ELO acceptable for reasons I have stated multiple times. Perhaps finishing in a reasonable place (between GM's) in a normal tournament several times is more reasonable. Problem is, there are very few such tournaments today. -- GCP
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.