Author: Mike S.
Date: 11:53:10 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 14:19:39, Mark Young wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 13:57:22, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>(...) >>But now a subtle question arises ... Which of the three above mentioned >>categories does the top programs belongs to ? >>Probably this is the second step in definition ... >The data suggest strongly that the computers >are in the Elite Grandmaster ranks. >Tiger like Junior is confirming this data. (...) >That is why the GM argument is like arguing if the world if flat or round. It seems to me that a difficulty (so to speak) in this discussion may be, that not everybody is willing to apply the *same criteria to man and machine*, to decide who or what is GM level. Which you mentioned: a certain success in games, as the rules require it (and the elo performance according to that). But computers look a lot different then humans, so people might think they do not deserve the same criteria as humans. So, for example, they might ask if the program has all the complete range of standard chess knowledge, like the average GM has it. And if the program can't i.e. win queen against rook, which most GM's can do easily :o), than it cannot be GM level. Of course, as soon as a human player meets all conditions for the title, nobody will want to check if he has the complete range of knowledge (to declare him Non-GM if he has not). Regards, M.Scheidl
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.