Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:30:09 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 1998 at 11:57:01, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 15, 1998 at 11:48:59, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Danniel: >>In this, like in any other field, a tittle is always the result of many >>accumulated results, some explicits and some not. It's clear that just to be >>part of a GM tournament an so to be capable of becoming a GM you must be at >>least an IM invited to be there. And to get 2500 elo you need to win many times >>people with or around that rating. So, in the case of Fritz, he will deserve the >>tittle if he can obtain the same kind of steady, regular results any human >>player need to be tittled as GM. To win here or there is not enough and at most >>is a sign that it could be a GM, If he try to be. In other words, we must not >>mix the meaning of being GM, a formal tittle given according certain scores >>under certain rules, and being capable of being a GM. I think last version of >>Fritz -stronger than the first by a wide margin, I believe- could be capable at >>least to be IM. >>Fernando > > >It would be nice if there was such a title of computer GM. It should >be based on games against humans and not be subject to too much >manipulation. There are so many logistical problems involved I don't >know if this could happen. > >- Don what would be the point of this? Because then you still have to compare "GM" to "CGM" and they wouldn't be the same... We need fewer classifications, not more, particularly when the criteria for earning equal-sounding titles (GM vs CGM) would be different.
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.