Author: Mark Young
Date: 14:33:09 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 1998 at 16:42:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > I always thought everyone agreed it would be attainable, even 10 years age. Just from predictions of how computers played at that time. From what I can remember reading most people predicted that a computer would beat the world champion sometime between the years 1995 and 2000, and micros would follow about 10 years after that. >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.