Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:50:23 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 18:50:40, odell hall wrote: >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. I'm not ignoring a thing. I watch these things play humans and computers day in and day out. That is a _much_ larger volume of data than the rare tournament here and there....
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.