Author: odell hall
Date: 15:50:40 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 18:41:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Sorry Bob But the experiments have been done, over, and over, with Two 2700+ performances, the problem is that you and others are ignoring the results.
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.