Author: James T. Walker
Date: 05:41:04 07/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2001 at 04:44:51, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 23:28:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>You need to get out of this "programs aren't GM's" thing gracefully at some >>point, probably soon. You've got a bunch of people up in arms about it, and no >>matter whether or not you've been right at some past point, at some future point >>you will be wrong, and you will have to admit it, and all of these guys you are >>arguing with will use that as an opportunity to try to make you eat shit for >>about a year. > >There's no reason for Bob to change his mind at all about this issue. He's >chosen to argue the chess aspect of the grandmaster title (what a rotten thing >to do) instead of singular results here and there. And since there are no >definition of "GM strength" so far, it's a perfectly legitimate argument. One >that can hold water for a long time if argued with style. > >Personally, I find the debate to be ludicrous. Even if everybody here decided >that computer programs are of GM strength (given that we can agree on that >first) and sign a statement with our own blood, it won't change a single thing >anywhere. We have two very different entities (computer programs and humans) >that don't actually compete and we're trying to evaluate one against the other. >That doesn't make sense. > >A chess program with all bells and whistles could probably achieve all the norms >needed, but that doesn't constitute general proof. Some (me) would say that a >few things like opening book and maybe EGTB should be removed first, before a >"real" human vs. comp comparison makes sense. That's probably really silly, but >I don't care one bit. > >A definition of a computer program GM could be: Achieving the required norms >without book and egtb, using only a single cpu computer and the program must not >be modified at all. That would do it for me I think. The important requirement >of the above restriction is the ability to play unaided grandmaster chess. Not >strength achieved through hardware or book cooking. > >Regards, >Mogens Hello Mogens, Now here is a new one to add to my list of "Why computers are not GM's". If we take away their opening book, take away their EGTB and take away the latest hardware and send them out to get their GM title they probably will not get it. Thanks, Jim
This page took 0 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.