Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 02:16:48 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On June 20, 2001 at 04:38:01, odell hall wrote: >HI CCC > > Since I believe it has been established that the Conflict Concerning The >Computer GM question boils down to a question of semantics, or the >relationship betweeen words and their meanings, i would like to add a thought. >Perhaps what Doctor Hyatt and others are saying is that Computers UNDERSTANDING >of Chess is at the 2350-2400 level, Although they may, or may not be >Grandmaster Strength. Personally i would agree with many here if they formed >the statement in that Context, i believe computers understand Chess actually at >the 2100 Level, but they play chess at the Grandmaster LEVEL, this is because >they have certain talents that Humans Lack, mainly the ability to accurately >count variations. So maybe we are all agreeing, but not to the wording, or >meanings of defintions. I am sure, mark and chris carson would agree that >computers understanding of chess is at the 2100 level or lower. But they are >able to produce Grandmaster level play, because of other talents which is >unique to Computers? Does this make sense to anyone? You guys are using expressions like 'understanding of chess', 'playing at GM level' etc w/o ever defining them. The only term in this context which has a definition most people agree with is that of what a GM is. (defined by FIDE) Define the terms you use and then argue who is of this and that strength. (Or don't define the terms and throw mudpies at each other - YMMV) Regards, Sargon
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.