Author: Mark Young
Date: 05:16:36 06/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
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? Good post, I agree with most of what you said. It is clear that computers are playing at a GM level. Titles and Understanding don't mean anything. All the understanding in the world means nothing if you can not beat the "idiot" computers. no matter what the excuse may be. Results have always been the standard of understanding in chess. No one gives a rats ass if Chris, Bob, or I understand something more about chess then some GM or IM, because we are not winners at a high level. In chess it always comes down to results.
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.