Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:39:41 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 15:11:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 14:31:53, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 18, 2001 at 14:15:05, Côme wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2001 at 13:41:25, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2001 at 12:42:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2001 at 08:21:54, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Here in Finland we have 3 GMs. Here's from their ratings from fide: >>>>>> >>>>>>500011 Yrjola, Jouni g 2419 2 24.10.1959 >>>>>>500020 Westerinen, Heikki M.J. g 2412 10 27.4.1944 >>>>>>500038 Rantanen, Yrjo A. g 2327 0 23.4.1950 >>>>>> >>>>>>You can give computer a knight handicap to get interesting match... >>>>>> >>>>>>Jouni >>>> >>>>Quoted from Bob's post: >>>> >>>>"So picking a bunch of GMs with ratings of 2400 and then saying "hey, computers >>>>are this good, so..." doesn't make much sense. Because at _some_ point in time, >>>>those 2400 GM players were 2600+ GM players, otherwise they would not have >>>>gotten the title..." >>>> >>>>You are Dead Wrong again Bob, we will take the 3 Grandmasters from the previous >>>>post for example. Not one of these Grandmasters was ever close to 2600 elo and >>>>in fact only one of these grandmasters was able to best 2500+ elo. As usual in >>>>this argument your theory falls apart in the light of FACTS. >>> >>>Hello !! >>>You forgot one important thing : They all had +2500 in intermediate elo ! >>>the elo you give is the best rating published. >>>They all made Gm norms (TPR +2600) and had +2500 betwenn 2 fide list. >>>best regards >>>Alexandre Come >> >>You are making my point, it is much easier to make TPR's then hold a elo of >>2500+ for computers to be considered GM strength. If a computer can hold a 2500+ >>elo it is performing better then alot of grandmssters, and should be considered >>Grandmaster strength. > >The question is what is the meaning of grandmaster strength >If being better than a lot of grandmasters mean GM strength than IM's who can >hold elo of 2500+ should be considered also as GM strength. > >I think that Bob do not mean to this by the words GM strength. > >I think that he means the strength that you need to become a GM. >You can have lower strength later without losing the GM title. > >Uri That is exactly what I have said all along. the discussions seem to bounce back and forth between "playing like a grandmaster based on tournament game results" and "earning the psuedo-title 'computer grandmaster'". If someone wants to use the argument that "if a computer can hold on to a rating of 2500, then it is a Grandmaster" I suppose they can use that. But it doesn't hold water because that is _easier_ than what a human has to do to earn that title. That is just _one_ component. I suspect that _if_ FIDE allowed computers to compete and earn the title, computers would have an easier time than humans. For the key reason of consistency. They don't get tired, nor have bad days. They lack some important skills, but the consistency might be enough to offset that. If the rules were changed to say "2600+ over three consecutive events" it might be harder, but if a computer plays in enough tournaments, it will probably produce three of those over some long period of time, simply by the Elo statistical variability. So, back to the argument. Is this about actually earning the title (even though it probably can't be done with FIDE rules) or is this about "just playing like a GM player"?? Lots of IMs play like a GM. But they are still IM players in title, if not in skill...
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.