Author: Bill Gletsos
Date: 02:21:59 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2001 at 13:08:43, Mark Young 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. >>> >>>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. > >We are not talking about the title of Grandmaster, but instead grandmaster >strength. The minimum threshold considered as grandmaster strenth for years has >been 2500. No player can even be considered to become a grandmaster unless he >can achieve that minimum standard of 2500. > >You act as if we just pulled 2500 out of thin air, this is the historical >standard. > >I don't really care if people all agree with the 2500 standard, I can live with >any fair standard. > >BTW It is tougher to achieve and hold a 2500 rating standard then it is to >achieve 2 performance ratings of 2600, so you are actual advocating a weaker >standard then I. The idea of such a thing as GM strength will always be subjective and open to argument. Also your statement that 2500 is the historical standard is incorrect. Back in 1976 the GM title requirement was 2 GM norms at a perfromance rating of only 2550 and a rating of only 2450. Using your logic of what is GM strength would imply that back then anyone over 2450 should be GM strength. Over the last 20 years FIDE ratings have tended to inflate. 2500 today isnt what it was in the 70's or even the 80's. Most GM players maintained ratings over 2500 but as age caught up with them their ratings dropped below 2500. When we talk of humans we dont refer to IM's rated over 2500 as being of GM strength. We only recognise players as being of GM strength when they EARN the GM title. Also its debateable if its harder to maintain a rating of 2500 or earn the necessary norms. BTW its not 2 performance ratings of 2600. The way the Title requiremnet works is that you need 2 or more GM norms over 24 games. This gives rise to a effective requiremnt of a 2600 performance over 24 games. Most players require 3 norms to get the 24 game requiremnt.
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.