Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 06:48:55 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2001 at 23:38:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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". > >:) I never tried to prove anything with my poll, if you has read my other posts you would have noticed. BTW i took you up on your advice and made a how to section on my site you could call it a small "victory" i guess ;-) Regards Jonas
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.