Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:29 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 01:10:22, odell hall wrote: >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". >> >>:) > > Perhaps what the poll proves is that people have the ability to exercise Common >Sense. I'm glad of that. It has kept me alive for many years in my fishing hobby. Prevented me from driving off the edge of the world and getting killed...
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.