Author: Pete Galati
Date: 18:57:55 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 15:42:32, Mike S. wrote: >On July 01, 2001 at 12:35:07, K. Burcham wrote: > >>i am still trying to define my opinion on this subject. >>(...) >>but i would like to see a list of GM levels defined in detail. >>maybe about six different levels of GM defined, and detailed, how a GM is >>expected to play in each level. including expected blunders per game. > >What do you mean by "GM levels"... rating range (i.e. 2550...2600)? > >It looks difficult to me to predict the number of blunders. A player can blunder >less often, but play 2 or 3 sub-optimal moves in between... another player who >blunders more often (in total) can still be the stronger player. > >Although I would of course prefer to apply the same criteria to humans and >computers (which would mean only the success in games counts), there may be an >alternative. If somebody could create a complete (or near to complete) catalogue >of (a) tactical ability, (b) openings knowledge, (c) opening skills, etc. etc., >resulting in a comprehensive GM test suite. > >But it is impossible, because we know that things like positional play (or even >strategical behaviour) are very difficult to be tested by test positions. And once you define the GM level in very unflexible terms, they then basically become computer terms, and that's not what anyone's trying to come up with. >So I'm afraid we do not have an alternative to determine GM strenght by gameplay >success only. Judgement by the results. A computer has GM strength, if it is >able to achieve GM performance results (wins/draws/losses). > >Regards, >M.Scheidl It all seems like a basically worthless struggle to me trying to say the computers are GM strength. So if everyone says at some point in the future that the computer programs are GM strength, then so what? We've all known that cars are faster than horses for years now, but the average horse will still outlive the average car, and a good horse will still get you over more difficult terrain than ANY car or SUV or truck, and you're never going to race them against eachother. So there's no real purpose in the comparison. A horse is a horse, a car is a car. A computer is a computer, and a GM is a GM. And none of them are eachother. The thing that amazes me is that people waste so much time trying to do this. Pete
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.