Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:48:15 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 20:03:16, Fernando Villegas wrote: >I suppose there is a clear difference in what is needed to earn the tittle and >the fact that a guy entitled in this or that way keep the tittle for honorific >reasons. Like ex presidents named "president" long after the end of his careers. >In my country we have a very respected and loved player, International master >Rene Letelier, aged 80+, that long ago lost his capability to be one, but no one >dares to treat him as anything but IM. >So, some people here should have in mind the difference between "be" a GM and be >called a GM. >fernando Correct. I call them _all_ "Grandmaster xyz". But to "be" a GM requires more than just a rating that is magically above some mystical point called "the average GM rating". I use the FIDE approach to "award" the GM title... and I think programs will have great trouble with it. The only problem is that FIDE should have a time limit on "norms" or the computers will definitely do it at some point in time, because as we saw in the early 80's, the more tournaments a computer plays in, the more likely it is to produce an outstanding result here and there. If the machine plays in enough events, it _will_ get the norms. It might take 30 events, which seems silly. But it also has to maintain that 2500+ rating which makes it more difficult.
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.