Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:38:06 07/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 10:47:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >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 I guess that solves that. :) BTW, another "poll" taken almost 600 years ago proved that the world was flat, too. If you are into that kind of "proof". :)
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.