Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 07:47:13 07/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 09:08:17, James T. Walker wrote: >It seems that some people continually come up with reasons why computers are not >GM strength. But if you look at the whole picture it's hard to deny. I am >constantly reading here that "a single game means nothing";"A tournament like in >Argentina means nothing";"Playing a GM who is not familiar with computers means >nothing";"Beating low rated GMs(2500) means nothing";"The GM did not play >'anti-computer chess'" etc. etc. etc. What do all these things put together >mean? Last year I think it was some Spanish IM's that allowed a computer in >their tournament and all were embarrased. Now it's Argentina and the same >result. Now a computer has to beat a 2600 GM to prove it's GM strength although >there are many 2500 level GMs who could not do this. Why are people constantly >trying to put artificial requirements on computers that are not required of >humans? I believe one thing is already proven. If humans play computers just >like any other human then computers are definitely at GM strength right now. >Also if you want to set up the computer for a fall, it can be done if you have >enough control over the conditions. Some people want computers to be "bullet >proof" before they will declare computers GM level. Just another requirement >that humans are not subjected to. Some point at specific computer weaknesses >and say "see that, it can't be a GM if it does that". Rebel took on some GMs in >the GM Challenge and played them fairly even. Can an IM do that? If he can he >will soon be a GM. The only difference is a human has the opportunity to play >in FIDE tournaments and qualify for the title but computers do not. This is >done in tournaments and not matches where one prepares specifically for the >opponent. So that's where I stand. Given a fair chance for the title I believe >there are several programs that could achieve the GM title. Of course it's only >my opinion and it means nothing except that I've finally taken a stand. I've >walked into the "Computers can be GMs" camp (if given the opportunity). >Jim I second all of the above, well put Jim! Poll results so far, from my site: Are computers GM strength ? [126 votes total] Yes(88) 70% No(26) 21% Don't know(12) 10% http://www.geocities.com/vainot/BetaChess.html Regards Jonas
This page took 0.02 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.