Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:06:22 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 12:15:52, Tapio Huuhka wrote: >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. This argument is flawed _and_ pointless. It is flawed because as a human, I memorize openings by reading them, studying them, and playing them. I know players that can read a game one time, and play it back move for move 5 years later. "Kolty" (for those that had the pleasure of meeting him) could do this in a heartbeat, and for anyone that saw his impossible knight's tour demos naming each square as directed by the audience and then using those 64 names to do the tour, was amazing. He obviously had a great memory. So does a computer. The computer does not use a "book". It uses something stored "internal" to the machine, just like a human. The argument is pointless because when you look at a chess program, that is nothing but "written computer instructions", the computer "moves" pieces on its internal electronic board, it uses stored (written) patterns in the evaluation, etc. Basically a computer and human are different. The human has some capabilities that the computer doesn't, which I could claim is "unfair" too. :) > >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 :) Computers _can_ compete... but the registration fee is extremely large. A resolution allowing this was passed several years ago (It might well have been rescinded but I have not heard that.) At the time it was passed, most of us thought "that is a ridiculous amount of money to require..." > >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.