Author: George Mathews
Date: 22:55:33 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2001 at 01:08:36, Bill Gletsos wrote: >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 that subjective standrads arent any good but your continual implication >that a rating of 2500 means your a GM and that FIDE says GM's are 2500 strength >is blatently wrong. FIDE say no such thing. >As I pointed out in another thread its the GM norms that are important not the >2500 minimum rating. >If you were correct that 2500 rating meant a player was GM strength then ever >player rated 2500 and over on the FIDE rating list would be a GM. A simple >perusal of the April 2001 FIDE list shows that this is clearly not the case. So when Kasporov, Kramnick, Shirov, Dreev and others say Computers are GM Strength they are all lying?? NOT to mention Deep jr. 2700 rating.
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.