Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:41:55 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 17:01:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >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. > I _did_ reply to his point. Polls mean nothing except what popular opinion says. Nothing to do with whether something is a fact or not, just an opinion. Scientists don't go around taking polls to determine if a quark has mass, they do the experiments to prove or disprove it. Polls are interesting to know what people _think_. But that is _all_ they reveal. >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.