Author: odell hall
Date: 20:21:52 07/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2001 at 21:50:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.... I really don't understand what your saying, since even on icc computers are performing like supergrandmasters.
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.