Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Gravy for the brain that supports a 2500+ elo standard for computer GM's

Author: Tapio Huuhka

Date: 09:15:52 06/19/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 18, 2001 at 17:52:43, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On June 18, 2001 at 17:28:55, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>I.      Below is the 11 top countries with the most GM's
>>
>>II.     In the Top 11 countries the one with the highest GM average is Ukraine
>>        at 2545.30 Elo with 37 GM's
>>
>>III.    In the Top 11 countries the one with the lowest GM average is
>>        Yugoslavia at 2479.46 with 41 GM's
>>
>>
>>I think it is important to understand what it means to be an average Grandmaster
>>when discussing what we mean by GM strength for computers. Some in this forum
>>seem to insist that computers must perform like the Elite Grandmaster’s. Before
>>anyone considers them to be playing at Grandmaster strength.
>>
>>This shows a lack of understanding in what a normal Grandmaster is, and what the
>>true strength of a normal or average grandmaster is, and their abilities, and
>>Elo status.
>>
>>Titles      Country        GM  Average rating GM   IM  Average rating IM
>>1           Russia         119  2545.28            304  2415.07
>>2           Germany        49   2509.14            146  2401.75
>>3           United States  48   2507.50             79  2408.19
>>4           Yugoslavia     41   2479.46             94  2383.39
>>5           Ukraine        37   2545.30            116  2422.35
>>6           England        33   2523.91             42  2381.86
>>7           Israel         32   2535.63             31  2404.19
>>8           Hungary        28   2491.89             91  2372.02
>>9           France         22   2539.36             43  2386.12
>>10          Bulgaria       20   2499.35             44  2366.89
>>11          Spain          18   2486.28             46  2406.15
>
>ELO is not the only feature of what it means to be a GM.  The qualifications may
>have been relaxed recently, or maybe I'm just remembering incorrectly.  In any
>case,
>From:
>http://handbook.fide.com/handbook.cgi?level=B&level=01&level=01&
>we have:
>
>"1.0. Requirements for the titles designated in 0.31.
>
>1.1  Grandmaster: Obtained by achieving any of the following:
>
>1.11  Two or more GM results in events covering at least 24 games (30 games
>without a round robin or Olympiad) and a rating of at least 2500 in the FIDE
>Rating List current at the time the FIDE Congress considers the application, or
>within seven years of the first title result being achieved. (See 1.7, 10.10)
>(GA '93)
>
>1.12  Qualification for the Candidates Competition for the World Championship.
>
>1.13  One GM result in a FIDE Interzonal tournament.
>
>1.14  Winning the Women's World Championship match. (GA '93)
>
>1.15  Winner on tiebreak in the World Junior Championship. (GA '93 and EB '99)
>
>1.16  A tie for first place in the World Junior Championship is equivalent to
>one 9-game GM result. (GA '93)
>
>1.17  Winner on tiebreak in the Continental Individual or Continental Junior
>Championship is equivalent to one 9-game GM result. (GA '95 and EB '99) Arab and
>Centro American - Caribbean Youth events will be treated as Continental
>Championships. (GA '93)
>
>1.18  Clear first place in the Women's Candidates Tournament is equivalent to
>one 9-game GM result. (GA '93)
>
>1.19  One 13-game GM result in the Olympiad will lead to the award of the full
>title. (GA '93).
>
>1.20  Winner of the World Senior Championship (GA 97)"
>
>
>Especially interesting is 1.13.  If a chess program has had a GM result in an
>interzonal, then it is a GM!
>
>Has any such match taken place?

Now that we are talking FIDE rules, I wonder why it's still conveniently
forgotten that opening libraries and endgame tablebases do not agree with FIDE
rules (conduct of players). Human players are prohibited from using books during
play.

Maybe this has something to do with the fact that computers can't compete in
FIDE events and that many players don't want to play against computers. I think
it's not reasonable to compare human players with computers. Look what happened
to Kasparov: in the prefece of MCO de Firmian tells that much of the success of
Deep Blue was due to their good opening preparation (so Kasparov was outprepared
that time, too :)

What would be the rating of top programs without opening libraries and endgame
tablebases?

Tapio



This page took 0.01 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.