Author: George Mathews
Date: 23:15:38 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2001 at 02:01:36, Bill Gletsos wrote: >On June 17, 2001 at 01:55:33, George Mathews wrote: > >>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. So who is more qualifield to make that Assement, whatever computers are Gm Strength? You, or Kasprov, Kramnik and Dreev?] I AM rated 1700, when i play a begginer after a few moves i know i am playing a beginner, i know when i am playing someone near my strength, the same applies with a grandmaster, they know enough about chess, to know where a person is, don't you think? >>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. > > >They arent lying their assessment is just subjective. >For a group of people for whom logic is a necessary part (chess players and >computer programmers) its amazing that when it comes to this subject they are >quite prepared to be subjective. > >Its easy to have arguments with subjective assessments. Its much harder to do so >with objective assessments. > >Also a 2700 rating over a small set of games does not make one a GM.
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.