Author: odell hall
Date: 17:59:53 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 10:29:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 06:06:17, odell hall wrote: > >>On July 08, 2001 at 00:13:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2001 at 23:21:52, odell hall wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> I really don't understand what your saying, since even on icc computers are >>>>performing like supergrandmasters. >>> >>> >>>I'm sure you don't. But when you have time, point out a single "super GM" >>>that loses to a 2000 player. The computers are good, no doubt. But they >>>are not _that_ good yet... >> >> >> I am curious Dr. Hyatt, you did accept deep thought as a ligitamate Grandmaster >>correct? If this is true, how many games did Deep Thought play before you >>believed it's GM Status? Why do you Accept Deep Thought as GM and not Micro >>Computers? Is it because of your personal connection with HZU? Assuming of >>course that you do accept Deep Thought as GM, I think i have heard you in the >>past say this, although i could be wrong. I do mean Deep Thought and not Deep >>Blue. > > >No I didn't. Deep Thought never did the things necessary to actually 'earn' >the GM title. It played like a GM if you look at its rating over a set of >games. But it had horrible positional weaknesses. IM Mike Valvo totally >crushed it in a 2 game match played on r.g.c when DT was active. DB was >better. DB2 was even better and DB/DB2 had fewer obvious "holes" in the >evaluation than DT did. > >Deep Thought played at a GM level to win the second-stage Fredkin prize. But >the only requirement the Fredkin committee had to deal with was a rating of >2550 or higher, over 24 consecutive games. That doesn't even produce a GM norm >of course. > >So depending on how you phrase your question, I could answer yes or no about >the micro/GM isue. > >1. Is the computer a GM? No. Not enough knowledge yet, by a _long_ way. A >human GM knows so much more about the game. There are positions a GM can >understand, while the computer is helpless. > >2. Does the computer play like a GM? yes. Because over a 40 move game, a >human GM is likely to make a simple mistake, while the computer is not as >likely. Of course, the machine will make mistakes, and the human may well >spot them and end the game quickly. I expect this from Kramnik, but we will >see. > >3. Could the computer earn the GM title from FIDE if given the chance? >Most likely. If you enter it in enough tournaments, I believe it would be >capable of earning the required norms. Unless enough computers are entered so >that the humans begin to study them carefully and adjust their playing styles >accordingly. If your Saying that Computers must understand Chess, the way a Human Grandmaster Understands Chess, in Order to be considered a Grandmaster, then i have to agree with you That Computers will never be Grandmaster Players. I DON'T think that even Deep Blue understands chess like a human Grandmaster, so let's just say that Deep Blue isn't a Grandmaster either, according to your definition of what a Grandmaster is.
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.