Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 14:01:55 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 09:53:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 07, 2001 at 00:59:41, Jay Rinde 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". >>> >>>:) >> >>The world isn't flat? > > >Must be. Before Columbus set sail way back, polls said it was flat. No need >to try to sail around the world when you know it is flat. Instead of eluding the very well put point of James , why don't you try to reply to him. Thanks.
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.