Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:42:43 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 1998 at 15:50:59, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 15, 1998 at 13:30:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >I don't know what you mean by fewer classifications since I'm not aware >of any classification system for computer chess unless you count the >rating system which is not a title. > >In my opinion, certain programs stand out as being the cream of the >crop. There is no formal system of titles that make this clear at >all. > >I did say "it would be nice." I'm not expecting to see such a system >but "it would be nice" if there were. > >I think I am no longer interested in comparing to humans anyway. Since >computers seem to be improving rapidly there proably should be no >real attempt to integrate the two. It may not make sense for computers >to limit themselves to a scale that they are WAY on the high side of. > >- Don I am still after humans, at present. I believe it may be another 10-20 years before micros catch the upper end of the GM's with any regularity. I now have hope that this is doable, because of DB. They are roughly 1,000 times faster than we are. if we generously consider doubling in speed every year, the log2(1000) = 10, which means 10 years will have us at 200M. I don't believe that, because I believe that (1) doubling won't continue to happen every year, but is going to spread out more over time. (2) I believe that DB is realy maybe 10,000-100,000 times faster, when you factor in their hardware eval that they can do at 200M nodes per second. But we at least know that the upper reaches of the GM range are attainable now, which we didn't 10 years ago. So while computers may one day be supreme in chess, it is far enough away (20 years minimum) that there's plenty of work to do, and things to be tried... As far as ranking computers, I consider that hopeless. Because playing against other computers and playing against GM players is currently two different projects. I wish we had an easier way to get a USCF or FIDE rating, but it's not to be. Crafty is a member of USCF, but I have been unable to find a tournament without the (NC) classification, so that it is not really "useful"...
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.